Brad Hudson wrote:subgenius wrote:The simple example is how same-sex relationships currently impact family law combined with the fact that the overwhelming majority of studies that conclude with same sex couples being less effective and less beneficial for a child when compared to the child's biological parents. A society that encourages and/or condones same sex relationships is degenerative on this point.....a step backward....
Also, clearly a Federal endorsement of same-ex marriage in the USA will corrupt the fundamental principle of State's rights. Where we see that Federal recognition of marriage will conflict with the State - and the latter is the body responsible for the laws of divorce and majority of marriage property rights - thus another degradation.
Not to mention the more subtle implication on freedom of speech that we are already experiencing (like the Yeshiva School in NY or California Hastings Law School, etc..).
As I understand it, the problem with the studies that exist today is finding a true apples to apples comparison.
apples to apples?
the point stated was that the best environment for a child is with both of its biological parents. The only other apple would be "without" both......which was the point.
Brad Hudson wrote:Same sex couples can be parents in one of two ways: adoption or through a surrogate mother. As we allow heterosexual couples to adopt children, an apples to apples comparison would be of adoption by same sex parents vs. adoption by opposite sex parents. And if we all agree that having married parents is better for children, then we'd really need a longitudinal study of married opposite sex-parents vs. married same sex parents. Are any of the studies to which you refer of that nature?
though the studies have taken into account what you are stating here, your last point reveals the real issue.
Longitudinal studies of the effect of children in same-sex marriages do exist...and the results are the same. However, if we want to study the effects over an even greater length of time then what you are saying is that even though studies have shown the situation to be less than ideal for the child it is worth further experimentation on that child in order to gain politically. In other words the welfare of the child is a gamble for you...it is not the well-being of the child that you are concerned with, it is with the political aspirations of a deluded group. It is as if you are saying, sure holding a child underwater for 10 seconds is not that great, but we should hold them for 60 seconds and see if that is better.
Brad Hudson wrote:For surrogate parents, where the child is biologically related to one of the parents, are any of your studies longitudinal studies of married same sex surrogate parents vs. married opposite sex biological parents?
actually many of the studies have distinguished between married and unmarried biological parents and found that the married biological parents come out on top. Grandparents typically come out on the bottom along with same-sex male couples...same-sex women couples actually "score" pretty high....though their children tend to have gender role confusion, not tragically but it occurs.
This brings up the point i was making above about subjecting children to social experiments. Many of the detrimental effects on a child are from society. As they suffer the stigma of being in such an unusual parental status and as they suffer from not knowing the dominating gender structure of their community. Does this make those circumstances right? certainly not...but it does make it wrong to use children as the means to influence or manipulate those circumstances.
Brad Hudson wrote:Here's why I would say that extending marriage to same sex partners is good for children: the foster system is the least beneficial setting for children. Extending marriage to same sex partners will not increase the pool of children in foster care, but will take additional children out of the foster care system. For children, same sex marriage is a significant step forward: allowing more children to be raised by adoptive, married parents.
again, the data has already supported that same-sex couples are deficient for the cause of children. A better solution would be to encourage society to perpetuate a structure that has proven success. Allowing same-sex couples to marry and to condone their raising of children merely degrades that structure...it is the cause of children being in foster care to begin with...your proposed "method" could well increase the number of future children being put into the system.
Again, our children should not the source of social experimentation.
Brad Hudson wrote:The states rights argument begs the question of whether individuals in California were deprived of their federal civil rights. Suppose the voters of California passed an initiative that amended the California constitution to ban handguns. Would you argue that overturning that law would be a step backward because it violates states rights? Unless one believes that state rights, which are governmental rights, are more important than individual rights in each and every case, the state's rights argument does not show that extending marriage to same sex couples is a step backwards.
As you stated, the circumstances are the issue....i was not casting a blanket. If you consider there to be a valid argument that my listed State's rights should be superseded by a Federal right then make it. Otherwise my points are valid as they present logistical obstacles to the original concept.
With regards to this discussion it is a "step backward". Sovereignty of the States is a vital aspect of our Union, and it being diminished without virtuous cause will likely always be deemed as "backward".
Brad Hudson wrote:subgenius wrote:Now let us look at some numbers for example:
When California permitted same-sex marriage...18,000 same-sex couples married - representing 20% of the same-sex couples living together....compared to the 91% of heterosexual couples living together being married....this same skew is seen in Mass and even the Netherlands....so what?, well obviously even the LGBT community does not support or endorse this political movement being imposed by a minority of LGBT upon the majority of LGBT. Which is to say, that the LGBT community has no regard for the institution of marriage as it has been defined by society (a point that has already been established in other threads).
This argument overlooks the nature of constitutional rights. What is the percentage of people in the U.S. who attend funerals of soldiers and carry signs that say "God hates fags?" Yet, their activities are protected by the U.S. constitution. What is the percentage of the U.S. population that participates in the LDS temple ceremony? Yet, that activity is protected by the free exercise clause of the first amendment. We don't extend constitutional rights based on the percentage of our population that chooses to exercise them.
fair enough, and i agree - that is no cause for extension or refusal of rights.
I merely make the mention as a political point and as as point to the effect.
It is interesting, the anti-suffrage groups, composed of women, would argue that women voting was not a good idea because women were more likely to support the legal enforcement of morality...which they did.
But nevertheless, i will concede your point here.
Brad Hudson wrote:As an aside, the numbers you cite aren't a valid comparison, because you've failed to account for the fact that marriage was available to same sex partners in California only for a fixed window of time. A valid comparison would be to compare the percentage of single people of marriageable age living together in California with the percentage of gay people of marriageable age living together in California who got married during that specific window of time.
No step backward here, unless you always value the rights of state government over the rights of individuals.
the statistic is consistent in the other states (like Mass) as well as countries that have enjoyed "larger windows of time" such as the Netherlands. Funny how the LGBT is a "suspect class" only when convenient...if one tries to categorize them as "virtuous" then ok, but offer a criticism then "everyone is different".
Brad Hudson wrote:subgenius wrote:But i suppose a positive note is that your support for LGBT marriage is a de facto endorsement of polygamy. The LGBT has the simple goal of transforming any sexual behavior into a federally endorsed activity....which is tantamount to turning a moral wrong into a civil right...step backward
Classic strawman. Show me where the "LGBT community" has the goal of pedophilia or rape? The only "community" that endorses, say, shoving shoving an object into a woman's vagina without her consent is the extreme wing of the Republican party. Polygamy is a red herring and can be evaluated on its own merits. But you did finally get down to the real basis of the opposition to marriage equality: gay sex is a sin. Same sex partners are being denied the rights extended to opposite sex partners because of religion attempting to impose its values on those who don't share them.
NAMBLA comes to mind...unless like above, they are now conveniently "different" from LGBT (though i have to say they qualify as the 'G').........that straw is on you.
Brad Hudson wrote:subgenius wrote:same sex marriage is intrinsically sterile...thus negating the obvious family structure intended and endorsed by marriage....again...step backward.
Permitting same-sex marriage does not negate any family structure at all. Extending marriage to same sex partners will not affect the structure of any family anywhere in any way at all. All those families will still be intact with the same structure. Same sex partners are, in this case, functionally identical to any herterosexual who is infertile or who chooses not to have children. Unless we decide to bar infertile people and people who elect not to have children from marriage, this argument is nonsense. Moreover, by allowing more children to be moved from the foster care system to two-parent, married households, we take a step forward.
absurd.
why exactly do you think the Federal tax system rewards married couples with a deduction? why the credit during the year you give birth? why the clear language in Skinner v Oklahoma about marriage and procreation being inextricably linked to our society?
Sure, sterile people get married, and even fertile people get married and decide to not have children...but that is not what is held as a virtue in our society...that is not what is encouraged and supported by legislation and tradition. Almost every young couple that gets married is inevitably asked "when are you having children?"....heck, science has proven that procreation is natural and necessary...essential even to evolution....so, should our society consider any structure of procreation and relationships to be virtuous? Should our society and government endorse and support any and every means to "show our love" and bring new citizens into being?
Nope
Experience and wisdom have often led us awry but more often led us to success.
The evidence supports married biological parents are the most successful for children...should we not continue to strive for that structure?
sure no system is perfect and some married biological parents are horrible...but do we legislate the exception or the rule?
Your logic on this matter seems to be tantamount to making banana peels illegal because someone slipped on one.
Brad Hudson wrote:subgenius wrote:Whereas society begins to define its values only around property and not around family is a step backward....for through family a society is defined.
LGBT would degrade that definition to merely being about "property rights"...and that is simply not progress....it is a step backward as it degrades our behavior to that of two dogs fighting over a bone.
Are you taking the position that if two opposite sex people marry and either cannot or choose not to have children, then their marriage is only about property? You really think the only reason two people of the same sex want to marry is because of property rights? If marriage is a net good when extended to two opposite sex partners, then it is a net good if it is extended to same sex partners. Making a definition inclusive doesn't "degrade" it. It extends a relationship that you believe is good, that promotes stable families, that is good for children, to more people.
If it is not about property rights then what is it about?
You are proposing that the definition is diluted which leads to a degradation on this subject....the data is clear about the effects on children and you are encouraging circumstances already proven to be detrimental. Your conclusions are speculative, even fantasy, as they are not really based on facts.
Brad Hudson wrote:Here's my case for marriage equality being a step forward. The most concrete step forward will be the increased ability of married couples to take children out of the foster system and put them in stable, two-parent marriages.
A conclusion contrary to known evidence. You have yet to prove that same-sex marriage will increase the number of "stable" two parent marriages. Especially when "stability' is contrary to what you are creating. Confused gender roles, peer criticism, and lack of biological connection has been proven to be "unstable" - all of which is contrary to your proposed fantasy.
Brad Hudson wrote:That, in and of itself, will be a huge step forward. Second, there is an inherent stigma against same-sex relationships when they are denied a legal relationship and a set of privileges based almost entirely on religious bigotry.
not true on all points. If you are proposing that marriage is a religious construct existing in a civil forum then make your case. I believe otherwise.
Brad Hudson wrote:Giving people equal treatment under the law, regardless of religious condemnation, is a step forward for our legal system.
it is equal treatment. A Marriage license, much like a drivers license, has requirements...and everyone is equally able to meet those requirements. For example, the discrimination against blind people to qualify for a drivers license is a virtue because of the obvious social disadvantage it presents...the value of the many outweighs the value of the individual.....the same is true with marriage.
If the only virtue one can present in favor of same-sex marriage is "legal relationship" then it is about property rights, and, given your position on procreation and marriage, you would be unable to present a case against a Father marrying his daughter or a Brother marrying his own Brother.
Brad Hudson wrote:I see only steps forward and none that go back.
myopia