Why should not homo couples have the same marriage rights as heteros?

A right can be restricted. And requiring a license to exercise that right is one form of a restriction.

The actual issue here is not that gays are asking for permission to get married. What they are actually fighting is a restriction that prevents them from getting married in the first place.

I'm having a little difficulty parsing that last statement... Can you try clarifying it?

 

The research now involves many thousands of children. They have been compared in terms of academic achievement, ability to get along, range of interests, and many other ways. These groups turn out to be just like children raised by opposite-sex couples. I understand that the facts are uncongenial to you, so you pretend they're different. To you, "common sense" says one thing, and all the facts say the opposite, so you reject the facts. I am not impressed.

Right now, I don't think there's even any strategy for "fixing" single parenthood.

ANY two consenting adults.

I wouldn't say this is universally true. There ARE responsible people who compare notes in some detail before running off to a sexfest. But I think you raise a valid point here, which is that same-sex couples aren't going to breed like bunnies before thinking about the consequences. For them, a child is often a careful legal process. Which is one reason why same-sex parents do such a good job of raising children - there is no such thing as an unwanted child in a same-sex marriage.

Only the window dressing has changed. Ages ago when I was a boy, divorce was shameful and much less frequent - and a lot more difficult to get. So what happened? Well, the parents fought, they separated, they took their anger out on their children. Were children better off then? Apparently not.

And you don't think six months is enough time? I'd say it depends on the people and what they've made the effort to learn during those six months. I had known my wife for about 3 months when we were married decades ago, but we spent a LOT of time comparing notes about important things like kids, finances, religion, visions of a good future, etc. So we experienced no surprises after marriage, and even today as old people we'd marry again in an instant.

I agree. And by experience and observation, if two parents both care, their sex is immaterial. What matters is that there are two of them, that they are married, and that they care. So we are finally permitting committed couples to marry and raise children who formerly were forbidden. Everyone benefits from this, especially the children.

And frankly it makes no sense to me to prohibit the very behavior we wish most to encourage and reward!

 

You have yet to provide any 'science' Tex.

You have provided your opinion.

That isn't science.

 

Well since the 14th Amendment, it is pretty much settled that all Americans have the same rights. I am sorry you think some Americans don't have rights.

No- and frankly you haven't. Thats why you keep losing in courts.

The law so far is pretty clear- marriage is an individual right that all Americans have- your opinion is just wrong

Loving v Virginia
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
Zablocki v. Rehail
Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.
Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (188, the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life," id. at 125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"
In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,
In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965), the Court observed:
"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."
Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S. 678(1977)
"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur
"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

 

So you want the government to get involved in people's day to day lives? To dictate who they have to marry? How to raise their kids? That's a pretty blatant invasion of privacy. And pretty much counter to everything this country stands for. Are you going to demand that single parents get married within a certain time frame or face removal of the children from the household? Not all single parents are single women that got knocked up by a boyfriend who then left. It could be a woman whose husband just died. Or a man whose wife left him and left the kids behind. Not everyone chooses to be a single parent. Sometimes circumstances chooses it for them.

Having kids, or raising kids, is not prerequisite for marriage. It just happens that a lot of marriages result in raising kids. And there's a difference between having a kid and raising a kid. One is simple biology. The other is a lifelong commitment that not all parents honor. Knowing someone for 6 months might be enough time to decide to move-in and raise kids together. And 3 years could end up not being enough time.

 

What is marriage and what is marriage meant to be then?

Here is a quote that I like from the Supreme Court

Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

I like that- a 'bilateral loyalty'- hopefully enduring and intimate.

That closely reflects how I view my marriage. We didn't get married in order to have children, and we didn't get married in order for our child to be within a marriage- we got married because we loved one another, and wanted to establish legal bond that reflected our personal bond- one of bilateral loyalty, enduring and intimate.

My wife is my partner- and my lover. We were a family before we had our child. We are together for better or worse, for good times and bad- we are in this journey through life together.

We have gay friends who have the same kind of relationship as we do. As long as there are legal ramifications for a couple to be married, then I believe that my gay friends who have the same married relationship as my wife and I have, should have the same legal rights, responsibilities and protections as my wife and I have.

Of course the same rights and responsibilities of marriage that protect my child, also protects the children born in any homosexual marriage, and any child adopted by a homosexual couple.

I do not see why children of homosexual couples should be afforded less protection than my child enjoys as being the child of married parents.

 

Got some news for you dear, I'm in New Jersey and worked as an adoption unit supervisor, among other positions that I held, for 26 years. NJ has been placing kids for adoption with gays for decades, long before marriage, which recently became legal here, was even being talked about. I watched some of those kids growing and thriving in those environments. I really don't think that your qualified to bloviate about this stuff.

You might recall that I corrected you on this issue only yesterday (#122) You failed to respond or defend you position then, but here you are, right back at it, seemingly unable to understand what we're trying to convey here, or formulating anything close to an argument to refute any of it.

 

The reason people get married...are different then why the government will encourage marriage. The two have separate agendas. Government doesn't encourage marriage to suit individuals. Our government will make policy for its own agenda....and that is pretty standard with any government directive.

And the gay marriage agenda is not about the concern of kids. If it were---they would be more concerned about their fetishes within their communitiesi and gay pride parades.

 

Apparently you believe we should only encourage the best scenario- and ignore the rest?

I think we should have policy that encourages the best situation for children.

First of all- I think we both agree- that a much bigger issue- policy wise- than the issue of whether homosexuals should have marriage equality- is how heterosexuals treat their children.

Current marriage policy does little to address that. The restriction of same gender marriage doesn't address it at all.

Think about this- we could change our marriage policy to be more like our ban on same gender marriage- we could deny marriage licenses to any couple who have not gone through parenting classes. We could deny divorce to parents with children until the children reach the age of majority.

But a policy of preventing homosexuals from marrying does nothing to prevent single parents from raising children abandoned by the other spouse.

On the contrary- preventing homosexuals from marrying instead creates a situation where children will only have one legal parent.

This is the scenario: Two lesbians- in a relationship- decide to have a child together(all completely legal, all as impossible to prevent as the woman who ends up getting pregnant outside of marriage).
Scenario A: They are married. Child is born- and both parents are legally and equally responsible for the wellbeing of the child. If both spouses die, the child inherits their joint estate. If they divorce, both are responsible for raising the child.
Scenario B: They are not married. Child is born- only the mother is legally responsible for the child. If both of them die, the child inherits only the mothers estate. If they separate, only the mother is legally responsible for the child.

Marriage protects children. You may not believe that two same gender parents are optimal for raising a child- but can you not agree that being raised by two parents(assuming not abusive, etc, etc) is far superior than being raised by one parent?

If we can agree on that- how can you oppose gay marriage based on the issue of 'encouraging the setting that puts children first"?

 

About the only time I even see it being raised as an issue is when gay marriage is being discussed.

I have to admit, I don't get the argument here at all.

Encouraging gay people to marry to me is a step to preventing single parents raising children.

It will not by itself be a huge step- since 'gay' households are such a small minority of households- but it sends the same message-

If you want a serious relationship- get married.
If you are going to have kids- get married.

 

My opinion? What I have said is based on facts and experience. It is you who is stating an opinion. An opinion that has no logical or factual basis. An opinion shaped entirely by you prejudice. You talk about what should be but deny the reality of what is or offer any viable way to deal with it. You state a conclusion about what children need and attempt to support it on the fuzzy premise of gay parents are not equal to straight parents and cant explain exactly how. It's a logical fallacy.

 

Well I provided a quote right from the Supreme Court on what marriage is. And I invited you to have a dialogue on what marriage is- I am fine with discussing what the government agenda regarding marriage is- I provided my perspective- give us yours.



What is marriage and what is marriage meant to be then?

Here is a quote that I like from the Supreme Court

Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

I like that- a 'bilateral loyalty'- hopefully enduring and intimate.

That closely reflects how I view my marriage. We didn't get married in order to have children, and we didn't get married in order for our child to be within a marriage- we got married because we loved one another, and wanted to establish legal bond that reflected our personal bond- one of bilateral loyalty, enduring and intimate.

My wife is my partner- and my lover. We were a family before we had our child. We are together for better or worse, for good times and bad- we are in this journey through life together.

We have gay friends who have the same kind of relationship as we do. As long as there are legal ramifications for a couple to be married, then I believe that my gay friends who have the same married relationship as my wife and I have, should have the same legal rights, responsibilities and protections as my wife and I have.

Of course the same rights and responsibilities of marriage that protect my child, also protects the children born in any homosexual marriage, and any child adopted by a homosexual couple.

I do not see why children of homosexual couples should be afforded less protection than my child enjoys as being the child of married parents.

How completely stupid. I was trying to have a serious dialogue with you- and you throw out this b.s.?

Let me turn this around for you

And the anti-gay marriage agenda is not about the concern of kids.
If it were---they would be more concerned about their fetishes within their communities, the child sex abuse within their communities, the sexual antics within their own communities(Spring Break anyone?) than they would be about telling homosexuals that they should not be married.

And with that- the thread gets completely derailed.

Do you want to have an adult dialogue about gay marriage- or do we just fling monkey poo at each other?

 

Much of the supreme court quotes were based on the traditional concept of marriage. Marriage between a man and a woman. I don't believe most of those quotes were talking about people who believe they are sexually oriented to love and have sex with something other then the opposite sex. The supreme court is one branch of our government. It is not THE government. And I don't worship them as the all knowing god anyway. Sometimes they are right. Often they are wrong.

And again---your idea of marriage is not the governments reasoning behind the institution. Marriage has been presented as imperative for children....thus in the past when we had the "shot gun" marriage. It wasn't about all this dreamy eyed love and partner stuff. It was expected and pushed for the best interests of the innocent child.

I knew you would take offense but I meant it as a point. Looking at the gay culture as a whole...there is a contempt for the best interests of kids. Its indicative of that culture. So my point is---I don't accept the argument when gays say marriage is about the kids.

I remember a few years back there was a lesbian couple on Fox who had tried to organize a movement towards a more kid-friendly gay culture and community. They were activists to strive for a culture that had some morality and was less focused on flaunting sex. They were totally ostrasized and condemned by the gay community. It was telling and it is a factor.

 

The available evidence clearly indicates you are not the least bit desirous of any undersatanding along those lines.

 

Really? Care to elaborate?

 

Once again:

Well I provided a quote right from the Supreme Court on what marriage is. And I invited you to have a dialogue on what marriage is- I am fine with discussing what the government agenda regarding marriage is- I provided my perspective- give us yours.



What is marriage and what is marriage meant to be then?

Here is a quote that I like from the Supreme Court

Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

I like that- a 'bilateral loyalty'- hopefully enduring and intimate.

Are you unwilling- or just unable to discuss your own opinion as to what marriage is or should be?

 

Do you want to have a serious discussion about marriage- or just throw monkey feces?

If you want to talk about whether gay pride parades are a legitimate example of how all gays should not be parents- or that gays don't care about children- feel free to start a thread about it.

I just don't feel like throwing monkey poo back at you by providing examples of 'traditional family values' folks behaving badly.

 

I'm going to jump in here in support of SFJeff because it's time to get you focused and to keep this thread out of the gutter with red herrings and anecdotal "evidence" about gays being all about flaunting sex. Lets begin:

Your position is that children are best off in a traditional setting with a mother and a father. In addition you are against same sex marriage and adoption by gays because of your view on what kids need. Correct? Please feel free to correct me if I misrepresent you in any way.

I stated that I disagree on what children need and on what is most important, but I also said that it's irrelevant to the issue of same sex marriage, because SSM will not in any way effect the numbers of children who, for various reasons do not have both a mother and a father in the home. Therefor there is a disconnect between your premise-what children need- and the conclusion that gays should not be allowed to marry. Its a logical fallacy in the form of a Non sequitur.

Regarding adoption, allow me to make a few points, some or all of which I made before:

1. Single gay people have been adopting children in all states except Florida for some time now

2. There are an unknown number of children-estimated in the millions- residing with a gay parent figure or couple. In most cases that gay person is a biological parent or other close relative and only a small percentage are agency adoptions.

3. As with marriage, adoption by gays is NOT going to effect the numbers of children who do not have a mommy and a daddy, BECAUSE, when a child is available for adoption THEY ARE ALREADY without a mommy and a daddy. In addition, some gay folks may opt for adoption over in-vitro fertilization or surrogacy, thus rescuing a child from the foster care system.

4. In most if not all states, there are many more children in need of adoption than there are people who are willing and able to adopt them. This included older, and special needs children who are hard to place.

4. Most adoption issues with gay folks arise out of a desire for gay partners who wish to adopt the others child as a second parent.

To summarize, allowing same sex marriage will not increase the number of children in a non traditional setting. In addition, allowing gays adopt will also not result in more children being without a mother and a father. Allowing gays to Marry and adopt WILL RESULT in more children have married parents who are the child's legal parents, and that is much more important than gender.

Now that I've laid this out all nice and neatly for you, please tell us again how concerned for the children your are and how it justifies the position that you've taken.

 

So, tex...is masturbation heterosexual or homosexual?

 

OMG !! I just saw this now!!! Be careful what assumptions you make about people least you look rather foolish. I happen to have just turned 67! I'm straight and long time married. I know very well what marriage means. I really don't need you or anyone to lecture me.

 

At the end of the day, this is just the same thing as the liberals and gun control:

1) You have a legal activity that many people engage in without any problems (gun owners, homos), and a tiny fraction of those who create a problem (criminals, both sides).
2) The media takes the tiny fraction of problems and creates sensationalized news coverage, drilling it into the heads of their sycophants night after night. (FOX News, MSNBC) giving the false impression that these incidents are on the rise.
3) Then, a portion of the anti-whatever crowd (gun grabbers, homophobes) loudly swear this abhorrent activity is going to end civilization as we know it!

The reality is, everyone, on sum, is better off when I can have my gun, and when Frank and Peter can get married. (They don't have to go buy a gun, and I don't have to eat another man's sausage.)

The BIG difference is: I already have my gun, but I have to continuously fight to keep it. They don't have their unions, but have to fight to get them.

I do not understand why people are gay or what makes them that way, but I do not need to. I have still not seen a compelling reason to disallow legal unions between any two consenting adults regardless of sex or sexual orientation. Hint: "The Sky Is Falling!" is not a compelling reason.

Further, I fear, as a conservative, that if we don't relax on the topic of gay marriage, we will lose our country completely. Sometimes you have to concede a battle to win the war.

 

Interesting and compelling argument from a completely different point of view.

I differ from you in only one point- I do not think it is necessary to establish whether or not everyone is better off when you have your gun- or whether everyone is better off when marriage is inclusive- it is your right to own your gun and the state must provide a compelling reason in order to restrict you from doing so(such as arguing that convicted felons are too much of a risk of violent crime to own a gun).


Thank you for contributing that.

 

Not if you think two men can be married, you don't.

Perish thought. After all, in this brave new world it's defenders of perversion who are morally empowered to take up the lunatic's burden and lecture the commonsensically inclined.

It's kind of a shame all your compatriots aren't as openly hypersensitive as you are.