Homosexual Marriage

[Hmm]

Quote by: texasdave The reason the government does not restrict marriage to those who only intend to have children or who are biologically capable, is twofold, First, the government does not discriminate between equal relationships.

Incorrect, as is shown in the government's current stance of denying homosexual couples the equal rights that heterosexual couples have.

Since the vast majority of heterosexual relationships can produce children the government would be foolish to attempt to read people's futures don't you think?

You're avoiding the question. If some heterosexual couples are unable to have children or decided from the beginning of their relationship that they would not have children, why does the government grant THEM the right to marry, but not homosexuals? Both types of couples, according to you, would not be able to have a positive impact on society.

[texasdave]

Hmm,
Homosexual relationships are NOT the equal of heterosexual ones because homosexual relationships cannot produce children.
And I did answer the second question. I said government is trying to encourage child rearing, not demand it. Society has no need of homosexual marriage and you cannot provide ONE logical argument against that fact.

[Hmm]

Quote by: texasdave Hmm, Homosexual relationships are NOT the equal of heterosexual ones because homosexual relationships cannot produce children.

Of course homosexual couples cannot produce children. However, they can adopt. Does adoption not produce the same result as having a child?

And I did answer the second question. I said government is trying to encourage child rearing, not demand it. Society has no need of homosexual marriage and you cannot provide ONE logical argument against that fact.

If the government ultimately does not care/enforce whether or not couples produce children, as you stated yourself, then why aren't homosexual couples permitted to marry?

[texasdave]

Adoption is artificial to begin with. Homosexual relationships are artificial. Thus compounding the problems adopted kids already face. Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt. There is no reason for that either except they are trying to "play house" with their unnatural lifestyle. The government does not permit homosexuals to marry because their relationships do not produce any offsetting benefits to the burden of enforcing marriage laws.

[Hmm]

Quote by: texasdave Adoption is artificial to begin with. Homosexual relationships are artificial. Thus compounding the problems adopted kids already face.

First of all, you cannot prove that homosexual relationships are artificial. Secondly, would you rather see orphans left in some under-funded adoption center for their whole lives instead of potentially being adopted by a homosexual couple, where they could live the rest of their lives in a loving atmosphere?

Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt. There is no reason for that either except they are trying to "play house" with their unnatural lifestyle.

So, homosexual couples DO have the ability to positively impact society through means of adoption, yet you seek to deny them these rights, just so that you can continue preaching your same irrational lines over and over?

The government does not permit homosexuals to marry because their relationships do not produce any offsetting benefits to the burden of enforcing marriage laws.

I will repeat myself again: Adopted children produce the same "benefits" to society as children that are raised by their natural parents.

[texasdave]

You cannot prove that homosexual relationships are natural. Because you cannot and it goes against the biological norm of reproduction then I can reason that it is artificial. Two fathers or two mothers is also artificial. Even if they are adopted. Numerous studies have been done showing that children from single parent households are harmed by that situation. Doubling up on one sex or the other does not alleviate those problems. Homosexual adoption would HARM children, not help them.

[Hmm]

Quote by: texasdave You cannot prove that homosexual relationships are natural.

Nor have I claimed that homosexual relationships are, without a doubt, natural.

Because you cannot and it goes against the biological norm of reproduction then I can reason that it is artificial.

The question was whether or not homosexual RELATIONSHIPS are artificial, not reproduction.

Two fathers or two mothers is also artificial.

Yes, they are, but that is completely different than whether or not relationships between two men or two women are artificial.

Even if they are adopted. Numerous studies have been done showing that children from single parent households are harmed by that situation. Doubling up on one sex or the other does not alleviate those problems.

Proof, please?

Homosexual adoption would HARM children, not help them.

Can you prove that the supposed "harm" caused to them would outweigh the good caused by being adopted by homosexual parents?

[texasdave]

You want links on the harm that single parent households do to the development of children? You got it. Watch my next post.

[texasdave]

Here is one site from the UK.
Study Says Broken Homes Harm Kids More: ASAP Family News Articles

[texasdave]

That above link is an UNBIASED site too. Want more? I can do this all day.

[Jack]

From your link,

The question of why and how those children end up with such problems remains unanswered. The study suggests that financial hardship may play a role, but other experts say the research also supports the view that quality of parenting could be a factor.

So this report suggests that financial hardship and bad parenting contribute to developmental problems for children from single-parent homes.

Nothing in it supports your contention that "Doubling up on one sex or the other does not alleviate those problems." That's just your unsupported opinion.

[Maryjane]

So this report suggests that financial hardship and bad parenting contribute to developmental problems for children from single-parent homes.

As a solo parent, I've researched the effects of single parenting intensively . Everything I have read comes to the same conclusion.



As far as homosexuals raising children...

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes. Ellen C. Perrin, MD and Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health

Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health ABSTRACT TOP ABSTRACT REFERENCES Children who are born to or adopted by 1 member of a same-sex couple deserve the security of 2 legally recognized parents. Therefore, the American Academy of Pediatrics supports legislative and legal efforts to provide the possibility of adoption of the child by the second parent or coparent in these families. Children deserve to know that their relationships with both of their parents are stable and legally recognized. This applies to all children, whether their parents are of the same or opposite sex. The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual.1–9 When 2 adults participate in parenting a child, they and the child deserve the serenity that comes with legal recognition. Children born or adopted into families headed by partners who are of the same sex usually have only 1 biologic or adoptive legal parent. The other partner in a parental role is called the "coparent" or "second parent." Because these families and children need the permanence and security that are provided by having 2 fully sanctioned and legally defined parents, the Academy supports the legal adoption of children by coparents or second parents. Denying legal parent status through adoption to coparents or second parents prevents these children from enjoying the psychologic and legal security that comes from having 2 willing, capable, and loving parents. Several states have considered or enacted legislation sanctioning second-parent adoption by partners of the same sex. In addition, legislative initiatives assuring legal status equivalent to marriage for gay and lesbian partners, such as the law approving civil unions in Vermont, can also attend to providing security and permanence for the children of those partnerships. Many states have not yet considered legislative actions to ensure the security of children whose parents are gay or lesbian. Rather, adoption has been decided by probate or family courts on a case-by-case basis. Case precedent is limited. It is important that a broad ethical mandate exist nationally that will guide the courts in providing necessary protection for children through coparent adoption. Coparent or second-parent adoption protects the child’s right to maintain continuing relationships with both parents. The legal sanction provided by coparent adoption accomplishes the following: Guarantees that the second parent’s custody rights and responsibilities will be protected if the first parent were to die or become incapacitated. Moreover, second-parent adoption protects the child’s legal right of relationships with both parents. In the absence of coparent adoption, members of the family of the legal parent, should he or she become incapacitated, might successfully challenge the surviving coparent’s rights to continue to parent the child, thus causing the child to lose both parents. Protects the second parent’s rights to custody and visitation if the couple separates. Likewise, the child’s right to maintain relationships with both parents after separation, viewed as important to a positive outcome in separation or divorce of heterosexual parents, would be protected for families with gay or lesbian parents. Establishes the requirement for child support from both parents in the event of the parents’ separation. Ensures the child’s eligibility for health benefits from both parents. Provides legal grounds for either parent to provide consent for medical care and to make education, health care, and other important decisions on behalf of the child. Creates the basis for financial security for children in the event of the death of either parent by ensuring eligibility to all appropriate entitlements, such as Social Security survivors benefits. On the basis of the acknowledged desirability that children have and maintain a continuing relationship with 2 loving and supportive parents, the Academy recommends that pediatricians do the following: Be familiar with professional literature regarding gay and lesbian parents and their children. Support the right of every child and family to the financial, psychologic, and legal security that results from having legally recognized parents who are committed to each other and to the welfare of their children. Advocate for initiatives that establish permanency through coparent or second-parent adoption for children of same-sex partners through the judicial system, legislation, and community education. COMMITTEE ON PSYCHOSOCIAL ASPECTS OF CHILD AND FAMILY HEALTH, 2000–2001 Joseph F. Hagan, Jr, MD, Chairperson William L. Coleman, MD Jane M. Foy, MD Edward Goldson, MD Barbara J. Howard, MD Ana Navarro, MD J. Lane Tanner, MD Hyman C. Tolmas, MD LIAISONS F. Daniel Armstrong, PhD Society of Pediatric Psychology David R. DeMaso, MD American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Peggy Gilbertson, RN, MPH, CPNP National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners Sally E. A. Longstaffe, MD Canadian Paediatric Society CONSULTANTS

(Bolding mine)

Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents -- Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health 109 (2): 339 -- AAP Policy

[Maryjane]

FWIW..


Gender doesn't make much difference in a single parent household either.

Psychology Today: Gender Makes No Difference

[pikatore]

Quote by: texasdave You want links on the harm that single parent households do to the development of children? You got it. Watch my next post.

Your prejudice shows show loud and clear with that link. Homosexual couples aren't even MENTIONED in your source.

[texasdave]

I was trying to show how kids are better off with two parents, first. Next, I will show that having two moms or two dads does not equal one of each. I think I made my first point. But I will put up some more links just for the sake of consistency.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Fangrim We keep familes as the state-recognized unit of society. With the decline of marriages comes the decline of the Western nuclear family, and, by extension, the decline of society, since our society is based on families.

In that case, I would argue that the inclusion of homosexual marriage recognition would actually strengthen marriage, and would strengthen family ties. I think it is fairly clear that we are redefining the family unit regardless of what the law has to say about it; I think there would be much greater value in recognizing as a family a bonded pair who have created a stable family unit and maintained it for decades, than a pair who have managed to breed and then divorce after a few years, which is very much the recent trend in families, as far as I can see.

Quote by: Fangrim I don't argue for the dissolution of state-arbitrated marriages because it sets a ridiculous precedent: that as soon as a minority wants a right to be redefined, the right is instead dissolved to be "fair" for everyone.

Why not? The "right" was created to please a certain minority, and to exclude several other minority groups; why shouldn't it be dissolved for precisely the same empty reasons?

This is why I was looking for the codification of marriage as a fundamental unit of our society; I understand that it seems like that to you, but unless it is defined as such in law from the beginning, I fail to see what force the creation of this right can have in the face of a reasonable objection.

Quote by: Fangrim Even court cases cite marriage as a fundamental right and a building block for society. I'm with the first possibility. That does not necessitate that all people be able to se that right in the manner that they want to, of course, or that they should redefine it to what they want to.

As you say. I'm with the second possibility, that the government recognition of marriage was established arbitrarily, because at the time there were no other issues to consider; now that there are, it should be examined in depth, and redefined as necessary to represent the will of the people.

Quote by: Fangrim The right to marriage has not been redefined, and there is no precedent for redefining it except by 1) the right to privacy, and 2) states' rights/federal powers. Both are bastardizations of their respective rights categories. The right to marry has never been redefined in the United States. It has only been reapplied, and regulated, much like the right to vote.

I disagree that the dissolution of the bans on miscegenation were simply a "reapplication" rather than a redefinition, but this is simply where you and I differ. It seems to me that the essence of your argument is an appeal to popularity: more people want marriage defined this way, and fewer people want it defined this other way; since the larger group got there first, it can't be changed. I do see the value in following precedent and maintaining our important institutions despite the whims of a vocal few, but I don't see the strength of the marriage precedent, and I definitely don't see monogamous heterosexual marriage as one of our fundamental institutions.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: texasdave I was trying to show how kids are better off with two parents, first. Next, I will show that having two moms or two dads does not equal one of each. I think I made my first point. But I will put up some more links just for the sake of consistency.

Actually, you didn't make your first point, as Isherwood pointed out. There isn't a way to prove a direct link between single parenthood and the negative outcomes these kids suffer, as there are too many complicating factors and no clear causation. But since the issue of single parenthood has nothing to do with homosexual parenting, and since homosexual parenting has nothing to do with homosexual marriage, I'm going to call this a double red herring.

Marriage has value for society beyond parenting. Since it makes more sense to subsidize parents directly through child tax credits and such, there is no reason to maintain any kind of marriage benefit for the sake of children. On the other hand, married couples do tend to be more stable, productive, and happier citizens; thus it would seem there would be value in recognizing the marriages of homosexuals as well as the marriages of heterosexuals, as this will simply increase the number of stable citizens.

[Maryjane]

I was trying to show how kids are better off with two parents, first. Next, I will show that having two moms or two dads does not equal one of each. I think I made my first point.

I don't think you have proven anything yet but I do think you have gotten off topic. This thread is about homosexual marriage, not raising kids. I'd be happy to read anything you have about parenting. BTW, are you a parent?

Homosexual Marriage doesn't make sense in any form. Marriage is a bond set forth by Christian and moral ancestors to show the spiritual bond between one man and one woman. Marriage has it's flaws in today's society because of things like divorce, and prenuptial agreements, and lawsuits for any of the like. If it were a correct society, there would be homosexuals, like there would be any flaw in the human form, i.e. theives, rapists, etc. We are given a choice as people to do what we want, and because of that Homosexuals will always be around, like that have been around many thousands of years before. I don't think anyone should encourage such behavior, because it produces no positive outcome for anyone. Yes, it may seem unfair to the bleeding hearts to not allow one person a special bond, when you allow another person a special bond...but in order to meet the requirements of a time tested institution, one must adhere to it's policies, not change them because it is a timely thing to do.

One person previously in the argument brought up Black People, and how they weren't treated evenly in previous times. I would say that this is a terrible example because Black people are a race, and someone can not chose to be a particular race, but your sexual preference is most defiantly a choice. If someone can be gay by proximity (prison) be gay for profit (porn actors) then it wouldn't make sense to me, that there is a formal cause for homosexuality and that people can be born "that way."

People need to get over the fact that somethings will always be different for people who are different. In the eyes of some people the world won't be right until we are all a brownish/grey color with both sex organs. That way everyone can be treated the same, because everyone is the same.

I don't agree with homosexual marriage because it's not a love relationship in the sense that marriage was created by God. They will probably get their unions or whatever, for tax purposes, but what would you expect from the Romans?

btw, in the state of Tennessee it is illegal for Homosexual couples to adopt children. We feel it isn't a good background for youth to be brought up in a confusing atmosphere. I know some will debate that it is confusing. But if you want to strip away all mentalities on the subject, removing ideas and thought, and religion, and go back to the primal instincts, it is our main concern to mate and reproduce our race. Homosexuals lack that key ability. And I know someone will bring up the point about how dogs are gay or something, or other animals have homosexual tendencies.... well forget that because in putting the mind back in our bodies, we have thought, and know right from wrong. That's why we have an understanding and know our destiny, or at least that from an early age we are meant to die.