Same Sex Marriage Before the SCOTUS

Chris_V wrote: Ahhh, but what is simpler, eradicating marriage laws entirely, eradicating and/or modifying all legal rights laws already in use for centuries, or simply letting gays marry as if they were, you know, citizens?

Bingo!

The thing that I find funny is that I have only heard the arguments against Gay Marriage, and they have 100% convinced me to support Gay Marriage.

Osterkraut wrote: I'm sure with all the Facebook profile picture changing going on, the whole issue will get straightened right up.

I'll leave this here, just in case you weren't actually posting that in jest:

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

I'm going to have to disagree with everyone here.

The whole point of enshrining marriage in law is to have a social structure which unite children with their mother and father. The tax benefits, joint filing, attorney privileges, etc. all stem from that paradigm of protecting any children that may result from the marriage. The rest is peripheral. Adults are adults, they should be able to handle themselves. Kids need to be protected.

The attitude that it's all about the adults is completely missing the point.

scardeal wrote: I'm going to have to disagree with everyone here. The whole point of enshrining marriage in law is to have a social structure which unite children with their mother and father. The tax benefits, joint filing, attorney privileges, etc. all stem from that paradigm of protecting any children that may result from the marriage. The rest is peripheral. Adults are adults, they should be able to handle themselves. Kids need to be protected. The attitude that it's all about the adults is completely missing the point.

What about all the studies currently being sited for children growing up just as well in same sex relationships are hetrosexual ones. There are a lot of unwanted children in need of a stable family environment and many gay couples who want to jointly adopt, but can't becuase right now they can't get married.

scardeal wrote: I'm going to have to disagree with everyone here. The whole point of enshrining marriage in law is to have a social structure which unite children with their mother and father. The tax benefits, joint filing, attorney privileges, etc. all stem from that paradigm of protecting any children that may result from the marriage. The rest is peripheral. Adults are adults, they should be able to handle themselves. Kids need to be protected. The attitude that it's all about the adults is completely missing the point.

In that case we need to take away all the tax benefits for married people without children, and married people whose youngest child is over 18 (although I could listen to an argument for raising that age to 22).

Aside from this, I still haven't seen a study that wasn't flawed that suggests gays are any less capable of raising a child than straight people. And the one that most point to (Regenerus? Is that his name?) is fundamentally flawed; the guy himself said so.

In reply to scar deal:

Good point! I'm glad you're with us here, as it turns out that gay couples raise children as well as straight couples.

http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100831091240.htm

mtn wrote: In that case we need to take away all the tax benefits for married people without children, and married people whose youngest child is over 18 (although I could listen to an argument for raising that age to 22). Aside from this, I still haven't seen a study that wasn't flawed that suggests gays are any less capable of raising a child than straight people. And the one that most point to (Regenerus? Is that his name?) is fundamentally flawed; the guy himself said so.

Paragraph 1: that's fine. I don't have any objections to that.

Paragraph 2: anyone not raised by their biological parents has a certain disadvantage. I'm saying this as an adoptive father. There are just things that I will never be able to share with my son, because he is not my flesh and blood. There are things that my wife has missed out on because her body did not carry him in her womb.

However, the union of our bodies is not, in its nature, infertile.

In reply to scardeal:

As a foster parent that specializes in emergency placements, the idea that biological parents are somehow "superior" is a completely laughable concept.

scardeal wrote: Paragraph 2: anyone not raised by their biological parents has a certain disadvantage. I'm saying this as an adoptive father. There are just things that I will never be able to share with my son, because he is not my flesh and blood. There are things that my wife has missed out on because her body did not carry him in her womb. However, the union of our bodies is not, in its nature, infertile.

And that does not address the capabilities of gays to raise children, or gays to adopt. Actually, to me, that is an argument in favor of gay marriage (or at least gay parenthood).

FWIW, I am a church-going Catholic, I say the rosary on a somewhat regular basis, I've skimmed a great deal of the bible, and I go to confession. I just know that the Church has been wrong many times before, and choose to think for myself.

Javelin wrote: In reply to scardeal: As a foster parent that specializes in emergency placements, the idea that biological parents are somehow "superior" is a completely laughable concept.

In all fairness, you've completely missed his point. He did not make that claim whatsoever.

scardeal wrote: I'm going to have to disagree with everyone here....

I want to say I appreciate you being brave enough to providing a dissenting opinion, it is a critical component to any discussion.

I agree with you that a very important aspect to the concept of marriage (and very likely the original purpose) is children and family, but there are certainly aspects to modern legal marriage that has little to do with children (inheritance, medical rights etc.), and many marriages that have no children (for whatever reason).

scardeal wrote: I'm going to have to disagree with everyone here. The whole point of enshrining marriage in law is to have a social structure which unite children with their mother and father. The tax benefits, joint filing, attorney privileges, etc. all stem from that paradigm of protecting any children that may result from the marriage. The rest is peripheral. Adults are adults, they should be able to handle themselves. Kids need to be protected. The attitude that it's all about the adults is completely missing the point.

When my father was in his early 50's, he had 4 kids in ages 9 to 18. He divorced my mother, and effectively disappeared from all our lives. He remarried someone his age with no intention or possibility of having more children. Should he have been allowed to have a second marriage?

Javelin wrote: In reply to scardeal: As a foster parent that specializes in emergency placements, the idea that biological parents are somehow "superior" is a completely laughable concept.

To clarify: there is always the biological connection missing, and that makes things harder for parents of otherwise equivalent capacity. It's in practically every book about adoption. My wife is unable to breastfeed. My son does not share my genes. He may wind up having radically different mental and physical abilities than myself or my wife. He may have genetic dispositions to alcoholism that we don't know about. It's not ingrained in our "family history". There is an actual privation there, and it is something that has to be suffered.

In reply to scardeal: Okay - I get your point and it's pretty difficult to refute that it's tougher to raise a child when they're not your direct offspring. Given how you've chosen to grow your own family, I'm not sure how it affects the discussion at hand.

If you're argument that marriage is primarily about raising a family and non-biological children are at a disadvantage, then nobody should even be able to adopt. Am I missing something? How does legal-status equality for same-sex married couples come into play?

scardeal wrote: To clarify: there is always the biological connection missing.....

I see your point and generally agree with you on it, but what does this have to do with a gay couple getting married?

At worst, a couple who does surroget or artificial insemination birth will share half the genetic information (and should be aware of medical history or the other half). If not, you have an increased supply of loving homes (made more stable by legal marriage) for adoption and I believe there is not exactly an abundance of those currently. I can't imagine you are implying you would rather have child not adopted then be adopted by a gay couple.

whole lotta straw-manning in replies here instead of actually examining content.

whole lotta "i don't like what X is saying, its not close enough to the Y i want to see, so I'm going to infer they said Z, and talk about only Z."

aircooled wrote:

scardeal wrote: To clarify: there is always the biological connection missing.....

I see your point and generally agree with you on it, but what does this have to do with a gay couple getting married? At worst, a couple who does surroget or artificial insemination birth will share half the genetic information (and should be aware of medical history or the other half). If not, you have an increased supply of loving homes (made more stable by legal marriage) for adoption and I believe there is not exactly an abundance of those currently. I can't imagine you are implying you would rather have child not adopted then be adopted by a gay couple.

I think it was more tangential.

A child who is not raised by parents of both sexes, whether a single-parent or gay couple, does not have the day-in and day-out example of how to relate to members of the non-represented sex. The gay parents may have very distinct personalities, where one is nurturing and one is disciplining, but the child never sees those intimate dynamics between an adult man and a woman. Now, admittedly, pretty much all of my experience is with single parents, but I don't see how a child can learn experientally how to relate to a man from a woman and vice versa. That is, a second mother or a second father does not replace the experience of a mother and a father.

Bialogical conection? Well there are many gay women who have IVF and would like their partner to be recognized as aparent, just as could happen with a hetrosexual couple who used IVF and a sperm donor. This still isn't an argument against gay marriage, but can be an argument for it.

scardeal wrote: I think it was more tangential. A child who is not raised by parents of both sexes, whether a single-parent or gay couple, does not have the day-in and day-out example of how to relate to members of the non-represented sex. The gay parents may have very distinct personalities, where one is nurturing and one is disciplining, but the child never sees those intimate dynamics between an adult man and a woman. Now, admittedly, pretty much all of my experience is with single parents, but I don't see how a child can learn experientally how to relate to a man from a woman and vice versa. That is, a second mother or a second father does not replace the experience of a mother and a father.

And here we have the best, and IMHO, the only, argument against gay-parenthood. But the [peer reviewed, acedemia accepted] studies refute it--see Tom's links above. And it still does not address the fact that there are kids waiting to be adopted who have no parents.

madmallard wrote: whole lotta straw-manning in replies here instead of actually examining content. whole lotta "i don't like what X is saying, its not close enough to the Y i want to see, so I'm going to infer they said Z, and talk about only Z."

Yep, I already pointed out how to permanantly fix the mess on page 2 to no avail.

scardeal wrote: A child who is not raised by parents of both sexes, whether a single-parent or gay couple, does not have the day-in and day-out example of how to relate to members of the non-represented sex. The gay parents may have very distinct personalities, where one is nurturing and one is disciplining, but the child never sees those intimate dynamics between an adult man and a woman. Now, admittedly, pretty much all of my experience is with single parents, but I don't see how a child can learn experientally how to relate to a man from a woman and vice versa. That is, a second mother or a second father does not replace the experience of a mother and a father.

Intellectually, i can see the facet you're pointing to. But when you invoked a comparison to single parent experience, isnt a couple automatically having the better potential for a stable household than a single parent, regardless of its gender makeup? Wouldn't that stability matter at least as much as, if not more, than necessarily concerning themselves with a gender role example?

scardeal wrote: ...but the child never sees those intimate dynamics between an adult man and a woman..

An interesting point. I guess the question is: Is there really an effect there? Seems like something that would be easy enough to test.

I suspect the child's interactions with people other then the parents would provide that example (if it is a critical component).

madmallard wrote: whole lotta straw-manning in replies here instead of actually examining content. whole lotta "i don't like what X is saying, its not close enough to the Y i want to see, so I'm going to infer they said Z, and talk about only Z."

As Beer Baron mentioned earlier, the "religious" aspect of marriage is laughable anyway as it was originally a secular, civil union, that was later co-opted by the church.

scardeal wrote: ...but the child never sees those intimate dynamics between an adult man and a woman..

And a child in a hetrosexual relationship never sees the intimate dynamics between two men or two women, non are right, wrong or preferable. A self canceling argument.