Proposition 8 overturned

Well, this is lovely (not to mention fabulous :wink: ). Hopefully other states will follow suit.

I'm outraged by this and am disgusted at the tactics by same-sex marriage supporters. Now, I don't support same-sex marriage, but if I did, I would be opposed to Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling. His justification for "marriage equality" was the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. What he fails to notice is that it deals nothing with marriage. Not to mention, nowhere else in the Constitution is marriage listed as a right. People who advocate same-sex marriage as a Constitutional right invoke the ruling in Loving v. Virginia, which claimed in response to state anti-miscegenation laws that marriage was a basic civil right, but they fail to see that the question of the case was the legality of interracial marriage, not the definition of marriage. There was no question to the Supreme Court that marriage was between a man and a woman. How liberals distort the beliefs of the judges before them and actively reconstitute their own law from the bench is entirely unethhical. And all of this in spite of what California's voted on is completely outrageous. This doesn't change the fact that same-sex couples already have equal rights in California. It also don't change the fact that gays can still get married to the person of the opposite sex. Anyone who values states' rights and freedom would be opposed to Walker's error.

Discriminating against same-sex couples is in the exact same league as discriminating against blacks and interracial marriage. He is not trying to define marriage as a right, but cut-out any type of discrimination that limits any American citizen from being open to the act of marriage.

It is exactly the same thing as laws against discrimination in the workplace. Aside from job requirements, no one of any creed, ethnic heritage, sexual preference or gender, etc. can be discriminated against when applying for a job. Having a job is not a right, but being discriminated against is still wrong.foxhound_fox

Your point is invalid. Anyone, including gays, can still marry anywhere in the U.S. The debate on same-sex marriage is about who can you marry, not who can marry. As far as the Constitution is concerned, anti-miscegenation laws by state are still legal. In fact, traditional marriage can be outlawed by the state if the state so desires. It is essentially the same debate on drugs: it's not about who can do drugs, but which drugs you can use. Just because some drug users prefer to use cocaine doesn't mean we should federally legalize cocaine use so we won't be "discriminatory".

But legalizing cocaine would allow the government to regulate its production and sale, tax it heavily, and provide rehabilitation programs for users who desire them. Legalizing cocaine would only be beneficial to the overall state of the US, though, it would crush South American economies. That and there would be less violent crime associated with its production, import and distribution.

You still have yet to convince me that your argument is nothing but your opinion.

foxhound_fox

You missed my point. Even if legalizing cocaine was good for the reason that you mentioned, it still wouldn't change the fact that the argument to legalize cocaine because it discriminates against cocaine users is still paltry. The Equal Protection Clause does not protect someone's sexual autonomy nor does it support someone's drug habits. Homosexuality is a lifestIe just like heterosexuality. Yes, the state government can't make homosexuality illegal*, because that would have to force the person to change who they are, but they can make homosexual acts and same-sex marriage illegal, because that is not necessary to be homosexual, nor is homosexual acts and marriage protected by the Constitution.

*I should mention that the mere attraction that is homosexuality can't be illegal only if it's genetic or a "disease", thereby being a part of the person that they don't choose, like race or sex. If it's a choice, it can be deemed illegal by the state government.

I personally believe that homosexuality can be genetic, can be influenced by upbringing, and can be influenced by society. I think though, that homosexuals don't think logically about homosexuality and accept it by not thinking it all the way through for purely emotional reasons and not logical reasons. For most people, we are heterosexuals not by choice. For some people, we are intelligent not by choice. Our genetics may give us our genius. They may determine our sexuality. However, I believe that we can set goals and achieve them, even if we're not naturally that way to begin with. We don't have to be dumb and we don't have to homosexual. (To clarify for the sake of moderators, not all homosexuals are dumb, but I think on the topic of sexuality, they've made the wrong choice for the wrong reasons. This is, of course, just my opinion.) An individual is not stagnant. He is dynamic. He doesn't have to accept him for who he is. He can choose to change who he is to be a better person. Obviously, there are some limitations on this. Some people born blind won't be able to see just because a messiah supernaturally healed them. I think for most homosexuals though, they can change who they are, but it requires time and effort and I can't say that I'm completely innocent too, because there are things about me that I accept when I should try to change them.

Genetic_Code: Why would a gay person enter into a marriage with a straight person and vice versa? How does this benefit them, and wouldn't that undermine the valuable and traditional purpose of marriage?

michaelP4

A gay person can get many benefits from a traditional marriage. For one, he doesn't have to have sex with his wife, so it doesn't threaten his sexuality. Too, he will have someone to support him in life should he need it. Of course, he can still be single if he so desires, or actively pursue the field of his tastes. Three, that support can prove to be beneficial in terms of child bearing and raising, which is the cornerstone of society. It's ideal for a child to have a traditional mother and a traditional father.

A straight person has nothing to benefit from same-sex marriage, but if California's Supreme Court wanted to legalize same-sex marriage and ban trarditional marriage, that's their choice. They're wrong, but their decision is not illegal or unconstitutional so as long as they don't do it in the face of the voting constituency.

Your point is invalid. Anyone, including gays, can still marry anywhere in the U.S. The debate on same-sex marriage is about who can you marry, not who can marry. As far as the Constitution is concerned, anti-miscegenation laws by state are still legal. In fact, traditional marriage can be outlawed by the state if the state so desires.

Genetic_Code

That exact argument (and indeed basically every argument against same-sex marriage) was used against interracial marriage, and it made no more sense then than it does now. 

You missed my point. Even if legalizing cocaine was good for the reason that you mentioned, it still wouldn't change the fact that the argument to legalize cocaine because it discriminates against cocaine users is still paltry. [...]

Genetic_Code

This is assuming of course, being born as a "cocaine user" is possible. Your analogy was fallacious to begin with, there is a very big difference between being born a homosexual and choosing to ingest cocaine and then getting addicted to it. Or any other drug for that matter.

Your arguments against homosexual marriage have always been very contrived and opinionated G_C, it'll take more than that to actually convince a judge that it should remain illegal... especially when it does in fact violate the constitution.foxhound_fox

You misunderstand, once again. Of course, people aren't born cocaine users. Additionally, no one is born practicing homosexuals. You can debate whether people choose their attraction or are born with it, but there's no debate as to whether someone choose their action. I addressed this in my previous post by saying sexuality is protected by the Constitution if it is truly something you're born with, but sexual acts and marriage are not.

Genetic Code, what do you make of animals exhibiting homosexual behavior . . . like Banobos and Dolphins? Are they choosing or is it genetics?fat_rob

Well, I do believe that all animals possess some degree of free will. Genetics may create an inclination to behave a certain way, but ultimately it's the animal that chooses to act such way, although it may be harder for an animal to monitor its sexual acts because it doesn't possess the thinking capacity as a human does to abstain from sex. It may just undergo an action just because it feels good without any critical though as to the reason behind his action.

I just realized the irony of my username in this debate though. :lol:

Hmm . . . I gotta admit that I do think animals (and even plants to some extent) posses a form of autonomy and hence do choose. I also am starting to believe that autonomy, in the way we view it, is more of an illusion. :lol: I know those two positions seem like contradictions, but I haven't actually sat down and parsed out the theory yet so you'll have to forgive me for that one :P :lol: 

I will say this, from an ethical standpoint, I think we have to value individual freedom as much as possible. And insofar that liberty is possible to respect, it should take precedent over "traditions" which are merely sunk costs that people falsely put value in. Not only has marriage gone far beyond its original use, but the practice itself has been denigrated by heterosexual couples to the point that we have a 50% divorce rate. I see no sanctity in the practice. But like I said above, I kinda think the state should get outta the marriage biz altogether. 

I actually am a supporter of marriage privitization. The problem I have with Walker's decision that it is legislating from the bench. To people like him, the ends justify the means. To put it in perspective, when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, Jim Crow laws were prevented from preventing blacks to vote and women's suffrage had yet become a reality. Congress's interpretation of the amendment and the current mainstream interpretation is completely different.

I would like to do some research as to what in relationships make couples file for divorce and why is it so prevelant now than ever before.

G_C, define "marriage" for me. I'd like to see what you actually think the institution has been about throughout most of human history.foxhound_fox

I am traditional, but not blindly so. I don't uphold tradition for the sake of tradition. I uphold whichever is right and establish it as tradition, because if it is right, there is no need for novelty.

My definition of marriage is a legal union between a man and a woman. However, I support marriage privitazation, a paradox in my dichotomy. I will have to rethink my views on marriage. For emotional reasons, I believe that the bonding between a loving man and woman are very fulfilling.

For the sake of the children, they need a traditional male and a traditional female.

Genetic_Code

"The authors found that children raised by lesbian mothers — whether the mother was partnered or single — scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior."

"Children being raised by same-gender parents, on most all of the measures that we care about, self-esteem, school performance, social adjustment and so on, seem to be doing just fine and, in most cases, are statistically indistinguishable from kids raised by married moms and dads on these measures."

"Same-sex parents, and their adoptive children, fared just as well as heterosexual families."

"Most studies have found that outcomes for children of gay and lesbian parents are no better -- and no worse -- than for other children, whether the measures involve peer group relationships, self-esteem, behavioral difficulties, academic achievement, or warmth and quality of family relationships."

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

For the sake of the children, they need a traditional male and a traditional female.

GabuEx

"The authors found that children raised by lesbian mothers — whether the mother was partnered or single — scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior."

"Children being raised by same-gender parents, on most all of the measures that we care about, self-esteem, school performance, social adjustment and so on, seem to be doing just fine and, in most cases, are statistically indistinguishable from kids raised by married moms and dads on these measures."

"Same-sex parents, and their adoptive children, fared just as well as heterosexual families."

"Most studies have found that outcomes for children of gay and lesbian parents are no better -- and no worse -- than for other children, whether the measures involve peer group relationships, self-esteem, behavioral difficulties, academic achievement, or warmth and quality of family relationships."

Plus, there are single parents to take into consideration. It's not easy, but it is possible for a single parent to provide a kid [or kids] with the needed support (financial, emotional, nutritional, etc.). I would therefore predict that a gay single parent is just as capable as a straight single parent.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

For the sake of the children, they need a traditional male and a traditional female.

dracula_16

"The authors found that children raised by lesbian mothers - whether the mother was partnered or single - scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior."

"Children being raised by same-gender parents, on most all of the measures that we care about, self-esteem, school performance, social adjustment and so on, seem to be doing just fine and, in most cases, are statistically indistinguishable from kids raised by married moms and dads on these measures."

"Same-sex parents, and their adoptive children, fared just as well as heterosexual families."

"Most studies have found that outcomes for children of gay and lesbian parents are no better -- and no worse -- than for other children, whether the measures involve peer group relationships, self-esteem, behavioral difficulties, academic achievement, or warmth and quality of family relationships."

Plus, there are single parents to take into consideration. It's not easy, but it is possible for a single parent to provide a kid [or kids] with the needed support (financial, emotional, nutritional, etc.). I would therefore predict that a gay single parent is just as capable as a straight single parent.

I actually am a supporter of marriage privitization. The problem I have with Walker's decision that it is legislating from the bench. To people like him, the ends justify the means. To put it in perspective, when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, Jim Crow laws were prevented from preventing blacks to vote and women's suffrage had yet become a reality. Congress's interpretation of the amendment and the current mainstream interpretation is completely different.

I would like to do some research as to what in relationships make couples file for divorce and why is it so prevelant now than ever before.

Genetic_Code

Two factors:

1. It's now socially acceptable and thus people no longer feel compelled to stay in a bad marriage just to keep up appearances and maintain good social status.

2. A lot of the divorces are coming from the baby boomers who rushed into everything (majors, jobs, careers, loans, debt, marriages, kids, etc). In their generation, if you weren't married with children and living in your own house by the time you were 25 you were a failure. As a result, people rushed into getting married after only dating a person for maybe a few years max. It's not surprising then that many of those rushed marriages ended in failure since many couples hadn't really gotten to know the finer details of each other's lives and personalities before they made a lifelong commitment to live with each other. The echo boom generation actually hasn't been as bad in this regard (most are taking life much more slowly after seeing what happened to their parents when they tried to rush through life) although you do still see it happening (just watch any of those reality marriage shows like "Bridezillas" to see some extreme examples of a couple rushing it with horrific results; most of the couples you see on shows like that rarely have marriages that last longer than two years).

For emotional reasons, I believe that the bonding between a loving man and woman are very fulfillingGenetic_Code

It also don't change the fact that gays can still get married to the person of the opposite sex.

Genetic_Code

Heterosexual people can marry someone of the opposite sex which is someone they want.

Homosexual people can mary someone of the opposite sex which is someone they dont want.

Hardly equal rights.

The above justification you presented to justify there not being a same-sex marriage is pathetic and irritates me every time I see it.

For emotional reasons, I believe that the bonding between a loving man and woman are very fulfilling.

Genetic_Code

For the sake of the children, they need a traditional male and a traditional female. However, single parents are currently allowed to adopt and with that logic anyone with a clean criminal record should be allowed to adopt, regardless of their relationship status.Genetic_Code

 Oh please...

Prove that the relationship status by definition and independent of other factors affects the upbringing of children in a decisive way.

"The authors found that children raised by lesbian mothers — whether the mother was partnered or single — scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior."

"Children being raised by same-gender parents, on most all of the measures that we care about, self-esteem, school performance, social adjustment and so on, seem to be doing just fine and, in most cases, are statistically indistinguishable from kids raised by married moms and dads on these measures."

"Same-sex parents, and their adoptive children, fared just as well as heterosexual families."

"Most studies have found that outcomes for children of gay and lesbian parents are no better -- and no worse -- than for other children, whether the measures involve peer group relationships, self-esteem, behavioral difficulties, academic achievement, or warmth and quality of family relationships."

GabuEx

I've seen those studies before, but I find it hard to believe that same-sex couples would produce the same results as opposite-sex couples, especially considering the essential differences between same-sex couples. Not only would the sex of the parents as well as the role they fulfill will matter, but so will their community, politics, and religion also be affected. I can't imagine many same-sex couples living in the Bible Belt, but I can imagine a great many of them of San Fransisco for instance. I imagine that homosexuals are more liberal than heterosexuals for the same reason atheists are more liberal than Christians, because they are appalled by the intolerance of conservatives. I also imagine that homosexuals are less religious than heterosexuals, or at least less likely to attend a conservative church. These factors do matter, no matter how indirect they may be.

A report from the University of Southern California finds that the results of those studies may be flawed, which has to be true. These studies are simply trying to affirm equal status between same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents, but as I have pointed out, there are direct and indirect differences between same-sex parents and you'd have to be open-minded to accept the idea that they are equal. The article by Fox News confirms my belief. Here are a few statistics found by the University of Southern California:

A significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers say they have experienced sexual intimacy with a partner of the same sex. They were not, however, statistically more likely to identify themselves as gay or lesbian.

Young girls raised by lesbians are more likely to be sexually adventurous and active than their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents.  However the sons of lesbians exhibit "an opposite pattern" and are likely to be less adventurous and active than boys raised by heterosexual households.

Lesbian mothers reported that their children behave in ways that do not conform to "sex-typed cultural norms." And the sons of lesbians are reportedly less likely to behave in traditionally masculine ways than those raised by heterosexual couples.

I have said earlier in this thread that same-sex couples do not make ideal parents. I did not say they can't do as well as opposite-sex parents although I seemed to imply that in the part of my post that you quoted. Same-sex parents have the potential to do as well as opposite-sex parents, but it is simply not ideal.

Plus, there are single parents to take into consideration. It's not easy, but it is possible for a single parent to provide a kid [or kids] with the needed support (financial, emotional, nutritional, etc.). I would therefore predict that a gay single parent is just as capable as a straight single parent.

dracula_16

I agree. I have argued this point in this thread too. If single parents can adopt, leaving the child without a role for the opposite sex to fulfill, then same-sex couples are more than capable to raise productive children.

I've seen those studies before, but I find it hard to believe that same-sex couples would produce the same results as opposite-sex couples, especially considering the essential differences between same-sex couples. Not only would the sex of the parents as well as the role they fulfill will matter, but so will their community, politics, and religion also be affected. I can't imagine many same-sex couples living in the Bible Belt, but I can imagine a great many of them of San Fransisco for instance. I imagine that homosexuals are more liberal than heterosexuals for the same reason atheists are more liberal than Christians, because they are appalled by the intolerance of conservatives. I also imagine that homosexuals are less religious than heterosexuals, or at least less likely to attend a conservative church. These factors do matter, no matter how indirect they may be.Genetic_Code

If not then the factors you mention only matter to you when it comes to homosexuals. Nice double standard.

A report from the University of Southern California finds that the results of those studies may be flawed, which has to be true. These studies are simply trying to affirm equal status between same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents, but as I have pointed out, there are direct and indirect differences between same-sex parents and you'd have to be open-minded to accept the idea that they are equal. The article by Fox News confirms my belief. Here are a few statistics found by the University of Southern California:

Genetic_Code

1) A significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers say they have experienced sexual intimacy with a partner of the same sex. They were not, however, statistically more likely to identify themselves as gay or lesbian.

2) Young girls raised by lesbians are more likely to be sexually adventurous and active than their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents.  However the sons of lesbians exhibit "an opposite pattern" and are likely to be less adventurous and active than boys raised by heterosexual households.

3) Lesbian mothers reported that their children behave in ways that do not conform to "sex-typed cultural norms." And the sons of lesbians are reportedly less likely to behave in traditionally masculine ways than those raised by heterosexual couples.Genetic_Code

1) And why is that wrong?

2) Same as above. That sort of thing could be the result of any liberal parents (homosexual or heterosexual) having children.

3) Same here.

What you are missing is that those 3, lets say, facts, do not affect the results of 3 outof 4 of the links Gabu posted (I only read his descritions, didnt follow the links) so those facts dont say much.

I have said earlier in this thread that same-sex couples do not make ideal parents. I did not say they can't do as well as opposite-sex parents although I seemed to imply that in the part of my post that you quoted. Same-sex parents have the potential to do as well as opposite-sex parents, but it is simply not ideal.

Genetic_Code

So it follows that you are also against liberal, non-religious or atheist parents raising children?

If not then the factors you mention only matter to you when it comes to homosexuals. Nice double standard.

Teenaged

I'm not against liberal parents raising children. I'm against their liberalism, but not the care they provide for their children. I'm an atheist, as you know, that hasn't changed, and very anti-religious, so it follows that I wouldn't be against neither the nonreligious or atheists raising children.

Whether you accept it or not, politics and religion can make a difference in the upbringing in children, for better or worse. Since I disagree with liberals and since most atheists are (regretably) liberals, it follows suit that I would think less of liberal parents, regardless of who they raise their children with. It's no different then what you should think about conservative parents, who (typically) brainwash their children and do not raise them to be critical thinkers, but to follow authority, tradition, and religion without questioning and without reason. Although I'm a conservative, I'm pretty critical of conservatives as well. Of course, it's not my call to determine how any parent, conservative or liberal, hetero or homo theist or atheist, can raise his children. So as long as he doesn't do any harm, I cannot morally say that they can't raise children. If the parents do not let their sexuality, politics, and religious beliefs affect how he raises their children, all the power to them. But I cannot say that is the case with all parents. In fact, I can't ever seeing that ever being the case.

Oh so when we dont agree with some statistics, they are automatically biased...

Teenaged

You should consider all sources, not just those that support your case. I considered Gabu's argument, but it seemed irrational to think that the essential differences in same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples don't matter. That's like saying the character or the beauty or anything else of the man you seek doesn't matter. You can't be that blind.

1) And why is that wrong?

2) Same as above. That sort of thing could be the result of any liberal parents (homosexual or heterosexual) having children.

3) Same here.

What you are missing is that those 3, lets say, facts, do not affect the results of 3 outof 4 of the links Gabu posted (I only read his descritions, didnt follow the links) so those facts dont say much.

Genetic_Code

You're right. They show differences, but they have not been proven to be inferior.

And why is the parenting of heterosexual couples ideal?

Teenaged

As I've stated before, traditional parents exhibit both male and female role models respectively. Two men cannot exhibit two sexes. Neither can two women. It is proper for the father to act like a man and for the mother to act like a woman. Of course, society has broken down those roles. You could argue that the divorce rates are a result of the traditional roles being abandoned. I don't know much about the divorce rates to confirm or deny this so I will hold out on having an opinion.

I'm not against liberal parents raising children. I'm against their liberalism, but not the care they provide for their children. I'm an atheist, as you know, that hasn't changed, and very anti-religious, so it follows that I wouldn't be against neither the nonreligious or atheists raising children.

Whether you accept it or not, politics and religion can make a difference in the upbringing in children, for better or worse. Since I disagree with liberals and since most atheists are (regretably) liberals, it follows suit that I would think less of liberal parents, regardless of who they raise their children with. It's no different then what you should think about conservative parents, who (typically) brainwash their children and do not raise them to be critical thinkers, but to follow authority, tradition, and religion without questioning and without reason. Although I'm a conservative, I'm pretty critical of conservatives as well. Of course, it's not my call to determine how any parent, conservative or liberal, hetero or homo theist or atheist, can raise his children. So as long as he doesn't do any harm, I cannot morally say that they can't raise children. If the parents do not let their sexuality, politics, and religious beliefs affect how he raises their children, all the power to them. But I cannot say that is the case with all parents. In fact, I can't ever seeing that ever being the case.Genetic_Code

Of what use is to mention differences if they dont tell us anything important about the quality of parenthood?

I agree with your last sentence (assuming you are referring to both heterosexual and homosexual couples) in the sense that all those factors exist in the environment of the child and have even a miniscule impact.

You should consider all sources, not just those that support your case. I considered Gabu's argument, but it seemed irrational to think that the essential differences in same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples don't matter. That's like saying the character or the beauty or anything else of the man you seek doesn't matter. You can't be that blind.Genetic_Code

The source you quoted that refer to studies such as the ones Gabu posted said those *could* be flawed. Not that they definitely are, like you rushed to state right after that. I am not doubting that they can be flawed but concluding that they most definitely are is a stretch. The very article you cited (by FOXnews btw) says that they have just been presented in a more politically correct manner or worded nicely. Not that they are flawed at their very base. The very parts you quoted show thatsome information not being officially presented when those studies first were carried out are not really significant. Meaning yes, the broad statement that there are no differences was proven invalid but the differences arent something alarming.

As I've stated before, traditional parents exhibit both male and female role models respectively. Two men cannot exhibit two sexes. Neither can two women. It is proper for the father to act like a man and for the mother to act like a woman. Of course, society has broken down those roles. You could argue that the divorce rates are a result of the traditional roles being abandoned. I don't know much about the divorce rates to confirm or deny this so I will hold out on having an opinion.

Genetic_Code

Personally I find this lack of dual role models to be trivial or in the end its results arent negative. Just different.

And lets not forget that children dont find role models in parents only. But thatbrings up other questions.

When someone starts discussing about the causes of the divorces I always find that they are quick to judge. They see thebreaking down of those rolescoinciding with the high divorce rate and immediately assume it is the cause.

I am of a different opinion: I believe those changes are fine. They just happened relatively fast and we didnt manage to cope with them thus far.

A report from the University of Southern California finds that the results of those studies may be flawed, which has to be true. These studies are simply trying to affirm equal status between same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents, but as I have pointed out, there are direct and indirect differences between same-sex parents and you'd have to be open-minded to accept the idea that they are equal.

Genetic_Code

No offense, but for all the your talk of logic over emotion, this smacks of a purely emotional response.  A measured, logical response to a large number of studies on a subject, all reaching the same conclusion, is not to say, "They have to be flawed!", seemingly unwilling to even entertain the possibility that they are not.

It seems that the only conclusion made thus far by this discussion is that homosexual parents *might* raise children differently than an average heterosexual couple. This difference has not be proven to have a positive or negative affect on the child. Different is different, and that's all. Aside from that many children grow up in one parent homes, and are thus lacking of the dual gender role models that G_C values. Yet single parent homes are completely legal, and G_C seems fine with that.

Marriage has always been about wealth and monetary benefits, along with being a more legally stable environment in which to raise a child than other partnerships. There is simply no reason to deny a homosexual couple the legal status of marriage.

Ever since I first began considering the issue I've been struggling to understand why it is so difficult for some people to accept homosexual couples as being entitled to the option of the legal status of marriage.

Ever since I first began considering the issue I've been struggling to understand why it is so difficult for some people to accept homosexual couples as being entitled to the option of the legal status of marriage.itsTolkien_time

Ok I understand you mentioning the liberal part since you are conservative (although we havent established that liberalism is bad), but why mention that they wont be going to a conservative church? Just as a difference?

Of what use is to mention differences if they dont tell us anything important about the quality of parenthood?

I agree with your last sentence (assuming you are referring to both heterosexual and homosexual couples) in the sense that all those factors exist in the environment of the child and have even a miniscule impact.

Teenaged

Yes, I would say that was just to note a difference, which can be better or worse. Conservatives in the U.S. are stereotyped to be richer and according to Discover, this is true. When you have more money in the bank, you have more access to better health care, private schools, and other privileges that the lower class does not get to have. So, it is unfathomable to think that the average same-sex couple, who are probably more liberal and less wealthier than the average opposite-sex couple, have all as much privileges.

The source you quoted that refer to studies such as the ones Gabu posted said those *could* be flawed. Not that they definitely are, like you rushed to state right after that. I am not doubting that they can be flawed but concluding that they most definitely are is a stretch. The very article you cited (by FOXnews btw) says that they have just been presented in a more politically correct manner or worded nicely. Not that they are flawed at their very base. The very parts you quoted show thatsome information not being officially presented when those studies first were carried out are not really significant. Meaning yes, the broad statement that there are no differences was proven invalid but the differences arent something alarming.

Teenaged

That's a good point. The University of South California study did not say that same-sex parents could not produce satisfactory children. In fact, they said the opposite of that.

That disadvantage (if truly one) is easily outweighed by the fact that -as already mentioned- homosexual parents who adopt ae being tested before adopting and that ensures that aside of sexes they are suitable people, while natural heterosexual parents often times prove themselves to be completely incompetent or at least not good.

Personally I find this lack of dual role models to be trivial or in the end its results arent negative. Just different.

And lets not forget that children dont find role models in parents only. But thatbrings up other questions.

When someone starts discussing about the causes of the divorces I always find that they are quick to judge. They see thebreaking down of those rolescoinciding with the high divorce rate and immediately assume it is the cause.

I am of a different opinion: I believe those changes are fine. They just happened relatively fast and we didnt manage to cope with them thus far.

Teenaged

Yes, you are right. Many same-sex parents are better than some opposite-sex parents. Having two parents of the opposite sex is just one preference. It rarely determines which couple makes better parents.

No offense, but for all the your talk of logic over emotion, this smacks of a purely emotional response.  A measured, logical response to a large number of studies on a subject, all reaching the same conclusion, is not to say, "They have to be flawed!", seemingly unwilling to even entertain the possibility that they are not.

GabuEx

Yes, I would say that was just to note a difference, which can be better or worse. Conservatives in the U.S. are stereotyped to be richer and according to Discover, this is true. When you have more money in the bank, you have more access to better health care, private schools, and other privileges that the lower class does not get to have. So, it is unfathomable to think that the average same-sex couple, who are probably more liberal and less wealthier than the average opposite-sex couple, have all as much privileges.

Genetic_Code

I really dont see what value that fact has here.

Or perhaps its a nice argument for public health care and SOCIALISM!!!!

[QUOTE="itsTolkien_time"]Ever since I first began considering the issue I've been struggling to understand why it is so difficult for some people to accept homosexual couples as being entitled to the option of the legal status of marriage.foxhound_fox

It's mostly impossible to determine a "normal" boundary of any feeling. I agree, now that marriage has become more about love than ever we ought to allow this. Besides, homosexuality isn't some new fad that just popped up, its been around for ages in varying degrees. 

As I've stated before, traditional parents exhibit both male and female role models respectively. Two men cannot exhibit two sexes. Neither can two women. It is proper for the father to act like a man and for the mother to act like a woman. Of course, society has broken down those roles. You could argue that the divorce rates are a result of the traditional roles being abandoned. I don't know much about the divorce rates to confirm or deny this so I will hold out on having an opinion.

Genetic_Code

Prove that a family which follows "proper" or "traditional" roles is an "ideal" family. I'm interested in seeing you justify that stance, considering that what is "ideal" is a matter of pure opinion, and that what is traditional varies from culture to culture. In fact I'm also interested in why you believe that something is better just because it's "tradition", considering that from what I've seen the primary and only method of justifying that statement is to repeat it.

Of course, you should also understand that I come from Malaysia, so whenever anyone brings up "tradition" to support an argument I tend to get all hot and bothered and rather pissed off.

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

As I've stated before, traditional parents exhibit both male and female role models respectively. Two men cannot exhibit two sexes. Neither can two women. It is proper for the father to act like a man and for the mother to act like a woman. Of course, society has broken down those roles. You could argue that the divorce rates are a result of the traditional roles being abandoned. I don't know much about the divorce rates to confirm or deny this so I will hold out on having an opinion.

Barbariser

Prove that a family which follows "proper" or "traditional" roles is an "ideal" family. I'm interested in seeing you justify that stance, considering that what is "ideal" is a matter of pure opinion, and that what is traditional varies from culture to culture. In fact I'm also interested in why you believe that something is better just because it's "tradition", considering that from what I've seen the primary and only method of justifying that statement is to repeat it.

Of course, you should also understand that I come from Malaysia, so whenever anyone brings up "tradition" to support an argument I tend to get all hot and bothered and rather pissed off.

This isn't really my argument, but if by "traditional" he means biological, then I agree to some extent. I know it is not really politically correct to claim that gender is important both biologically and in the human psyche (which probably are intertwined to some extent), but I personally have no problem saying that heterosexuality is certainly the natural tradition passed down to us from our ancestors both in our anatomy(even beyond just genitalia) and in many respects in how we interact as a society. Now if you want to argue that the right of someone to use an arbitrary term like "marriage" to describe their commitment to another member of the same sex is more important than honoring that heritage I can honestly see your point, but I also think honoring that tradition is more important. Unfortunately I am afraid that in your view my viewpoint makes me a bigot and yours makes you a free thinker. I am not up in arms against gay marriage like some and I believe there are many MANY more important issued to be worried about and worthy of time, but if I was in the voters booth and had a question saying yes or no then I would vote against it

This isn't really my argument, but if by "traditional" he means biological, then I agree to some extent. I know it is not really politically correct to claim that gender is important both biologically and in the human psyche (which probably are intertwined to some extent), but I personally have no problem saying that heterosexuality is certainly the natural tradition passed down to us from our ancestors both in our anatomy(even beyond just genitalia) and in many respects in how we interact as a society. Now if you want to argue that the right of someone to use an arbitrary term like "marriage" to describe their commitment to another member of the same sex is more important than honoring that heritage I can honestly see your point, but I also think honoring that tradition is more important.

Plzhelpmelearn

How is going against tradition necessarily a bad thing? If our laws were based upon logic like that, interracial marriage wouldn't be possible because it would have gone against the tradition of marriage in the 60s, and you could extend that to things like women and non-whites getting the right to vote. Hell, any kind of social progress would be "bad" simply because they broke tradition.

What exactly makes "honoring the heritage" an inherently good thing? Every single person I've met who's ever used that reasoning to justify their positions hasn't been able to explain this: in fact I've noticed that the only method of supporting the point is to repeat it. And I live in Malaysia, where that's one of the points that our politicians use to prevent racial equality, so I've developed a sense of animosity towards it.

How is going against tradition necessarily a bad thing? If our laws were based upon logic like that, interracial marriage wouldn't be possible because it would have gone against the tradition of marriage in the 60s, and you could extend that to things like women and non-whites getting the right to vote. Hell, any kind of social progress would be "bad" simply because they broke tradition.

What exactly makes "honoring the heritage" an inherently good thing? Every single person I've met who's ever used that reasoning to justify their positions hasn't been able to explain this: in fact I've noticed that the only method of supporting the point is to repeat it. And I live in Malaysia, where that's one of the points that our politicians use to prevent racial equality, so I've developed a sense of animosity towards it.

Barbariser

You're right. As I've stated before in this thread, tradition is not automatically good. Nor is novelty by the way. However, if it is good and the best that can be provided, it should be preserved and not discarded for something less in value. Some traditions, such as gender roles, are essential in being. They are based in ethics, this is true, but the essence of their truth is based on metaphysics and that is no different in the case of gender roles. Your typical man is larger, strong, and more productive than your typical woman. Only women are capable of pregnancy and birth. Your typical woman is better at raising children and have skills suited for taking care of a house instead of providing for the family financially. Granted, not all men and not all women are equal. Some women are stronger than men. Some men make better homemakers. This is why gender roles are not prescribed by the government, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be preserved by couples. You must recognize these essential differences between men and women for the same reason you must recognize the essential differences between humans and the other animals. For a human to act like a human, he must be aware that he is human. For an adult to act like an adult, he must realize he's too old for childish behavior. For a man to act like a man, he must realize that he best provides for the family what the wife cannot. You can reinterpret and modify reality when it's possible, but you can't escape it.

This is, in essence, the summary of what my response would be to your previous reply that was directed to me. I considered not posting this because I'm convinced just as I ever was that this will not change your opinion. However, your reply to Plzhelpmelearn sparked interest in me to post a reply to you, not for your sake, but for my own; to get my thoughts into writing so I can prove to myself that what I'm thinking is reasonable.

You're right. As I've stated before in this thread, tradition is not automatically good. Nor is novelty by the way. However, if it is good and the best that can be provided, it should be preserved and not discarded for something less in value. Some traditions, such as gender roles, are essential in being. They are based in ethics, this is true, but the essence of their truth is based on metaphysics and that is no different in the case of gender roles. Your typical man is larger, strong, and more productive than your typical woman. Only women are capable of pregnancy and birth. Your typical woman is better at raising children and have skills suited for taking care of a house instead of providing for the family financially. Granted, not all men and not all women are equal. Some women are stronger than men. Some men make better homemakers. This is why gender roles are not prescribed by the government, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be preserved by couples. You must recognize these essential differences between men and women for the same reason you must recognize the essential differences between humans and the other animals. For a human to act like a human, he must be aware that he is human. For an adult to act like an adult, he must realize he's too old for childish behavior. For a man to act like a man, he must realize that he best provides for the family what the wife cannot. You can reinterpret and modify reality when it's possible, but you can't escape it.

This is, in essence, the summary of what my response would be to your previous reply that was directed to me. I considered not posting this because I'm convinced just as I ever was that this will not change your opinion. However, your reply to Plzhelpmelearn sparked interest in me to post a reply to you, not for your sake, but for my own; to get my thoughts into writing so I can prove to myself that what I'm thinking is reasonable.

Genetic_Code

You speak of the typical man/woman as if it is THE definition of a man or a woman. Even you letting in that not all people follow the typical definitions doesnt stop you from appearing to treat those definitions as the correct ones without first establishing why the qualities you have encompassed in each of them are the qualities they should encompass.

Even though I find the analogy of our identity as humans as opposed to animals flawed, there is a better objection to it: what I said above applies here.

How do you establish beyond doubt that x, y and z characteristic is exclusively for animals, or that x, y and z characteristic is exclusively for humans?

For many people sex is something that is exclusively animal behavior and only accept it for the necessity of reproduction (if to them it is a necessity). How do they figure?

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

How is going against tradition necessarily a bad thing? If our laws were based upon logic like that, interracial marriage wouldn't be possible because it would have gone against the tradition of marriage in the 60s, and you could extend that to things like women and non-whites getting the right to vote. Hell, any kind of social progress would be "bad" simply because they broke tradition.

What exactly makes "honoring the heritage" an inherently good thing? Every single person I've met who's ever used that reasoning to justify their positions hasn't been able to explain this: in fact I've noticed that the only method of supporting the point is to repeat it. And I live in Malaysia, where that's one of the points that our politicians use to prevent racial equality, so I've developed a sense of animosity towards it.

Genetic_Code

You're right. As I've stated before in this thread, tradition is not automatically good. Nor is novelty by the way. However, if it is good and the best that can be provided, it should be preserved and not discarded for something less in value. Some traditions, such as gender roles, are essential in being. They are based in ethics, this is true, but the essence of their truth is based on metaphysics and that is no different in the case of gender roles. Your typical man is larger, strong, and more productive than your typical woman. Only women are capable of pregnancy and birth. Your typical woman is better at raising children and have skills suited for taking care of a house instead of providing for the family financially. Granted, not all men and not all women are equal. Some women are stronger than men. Some men make better homemakers. This is why gender roles are not prescribed by the government, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be preserved by couples. You must recognize these essential differences between men and women for the same reason you must recognize the essential differences between humans and the other animals. For a human to act like a human, he must be aware that he is human. For an adult to act like an adult, he must realize he's too old for childish behavior. For a man to act like a man, he must realize that he best provides for the family what the wife cannot. You can reinterpret and modify reality when it's possible, but you can't escape it.

This is, in essence, the summary of what my response would be to your previous reply that was directed to me. I considered not posting this because I'm convinced just as I ever was that this will not change your opinion. However, your reply to Plzhelpmelearn sparked interest in me to post a reply to you, not for your sake, but for my own; to get my thoughts into writing so I can prove to myself that what I'm thinking is reasonable.

Going against a tradition is not necessarily a bad thing.

However, I'll just add to this and emphasize that a couple things

1) There is still a lot of study being done in regards to gender and sexual identity and not everyone thinks the tendency of society in general to de-emphasize gender is good for society.  http://www.amazon.com/Why-Gender-Matters-Teachers-Differences/dp/0767916255/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1282023850&sr=8-1 was certainly an interesting read for me. 

2)  I do not like the comparison of interracial marriage to homosexual marriage because I believe the foundation of each is different. The reason heterosexual couples of different races could not get marry is because blacks for much of history were seen as inferior and would corrupt the blood line or whatever. That is completely out of line and should have been done away with as it was.  Race is only skin deep and that is where it ends.

Gender and sexuality is in fact the REASON marriage even exists. The idea that a man and a woman have been designed for one another in many different ways from the beginning of our species is pretty close to one of the most foundational aspects of our species and now our society. It is not a human constructed tradition that was baseless such as the persecution of blacks, it has its roots well beyond that and even beyond procreation itself. My beef is not really so much with homosexual marriage, but that is one piece in the entire idea of society de-genderizing everyone to lower us all to one common denominator. 

I don't think that homosexuals should not be allowed to practice their free will and enjoy members of the same sex. I think they should be entitled to all the insurance and other benefits that come from commiting your life to someone, but at the same time I do think marriage is an institution worth keeping alive. 

You're right. As I've stated before in this thread, tradition is not automatically good. Nor is novelty by the way. However, if it is good and the best that can be provided, it should be preserved and not discarded for something less in value. Some traditions, such as gender roles, are essential in being. They are based in ethics, this is true, but the essence of their truth is based on metaphysics and that is no different in the case of gender roles. Your typical man is larger, strong, and more productive than your typical woman. Only women are capable of pregnancy and birth. Your typical woman is better at raising children and have skills suited for taking care of a house instead of providing for the family financially. Granted, not all men and not all women are equal. Some women are stronger than men. Some men make better homemakers. This is why gender roles are not prescribed by the government, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be preserved by couples. You must recognize these essential differences between men and women for the same reason you must recognize the essential differences between humans and the other animals. For a human to act like a human, he must be aware that he is human. For an adult to act like an adult, he must realize he's too old for childish behavior. For a man to act like a man, he must realize that he best provides for the family what the wife cannot. You can reinterpret and modify reality when it's possible, but you can't escape it.

Genetic_Code

Your logic runs in circles. What you're essentially saying is that the traditional stance of marriage is good because it results in men fulfilling the traditional roles of men and women fulfilling the traditional roles of women.

Also, I'd like some evidence that women are inherently worse than men at providing financial and material support and that men are inherently worse than women at providing emotional support, considering that women haven't had the liberties to work to the same degree in most parts of the world 'till the 20th century (so it's arguable that the situational residue of our historical social structures is working against women in this respect, hence making it appear as if they're less productive). On a parallel, men aren't exactly extensively tested nurturers precisely because the social structure of pre-1900s societies never gave them that much opportunity to fulfill that role.

However, psychologists believe that the sexuality of the parents is insignificant. You've probably seen these links anyway, but here they are. 

So, in short, evidence suggests that legalizing same-sex marriage isn't going to have any tangible negative effect on the family.

Going against a tradition is not necessarily a bad thing.

However, I'll just add to this and emphasize that a couple things

1) There is still a lot of study being done in regards to gender and sexual identity and not everyone thinks the tendency of society in general to de-emphasize gender is good for society.  http://www.amazon.com/Why-Gender-Matters-Teachers-Differences/dp/0767916255/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1282023850&sr=8-1 was certainly an interesting read for me. 

2)  I do not like the comparison of interracial marriage to homosexual marriage because I believe the foundation of each is different. The reason heterosexual couples of different races could not get marry is because blacks for much of history were seen as inferior and would corrupt the blood line or whatever. That is completely out of line and should have been done away with as it was.  Race is only skin deep and that is where it ends.

Gender and sexuality is in fact the REASON marriage even exists. The idea that a man and a woman have been designed for one another in many different ways from the beginning of our species is pretty close to one of the most foundational aspects of our species and now our society. It is not a human constructed tradition that was baseless such as the persecution of blacks, it has its roots well beyond that and even beyond procreation itself. My beef is not really so much with homosexual marriage, but that is one piece in the entire idea of society de-genderizing everyone to lower us all to one common denominator. 

I don't think that homosexuals should not be allowed to practice their free will and enjoy members of the same sex. I think they should be entitled to all the insurance and other benefits that come from commiting your life to someone, but at the same time I do think marriage is an institution worth keeping alive. 

Plzhelpmelearn

You definitely aren't getting my point here. If I'm reading this post right, what you are essentially saying that marriage "began" in a certain manner..... that may or may not be true (most likely not, since there's no single definition or form of marriage encompasses all cultures and societies). What you're saying is that marriage is currently like that, and that that's the way it has been for some amount of time. Which I would argue against, but it's not really relevant.

What I am, in fact, asking you is why we have to keep it this way. You're doing exactly what I'm complaining about: arguing that just because something has been a particular way for a certain amount of time, somehow this provides an actual incentive to keep it that way for now and the future, as if following tradition is inherently a good thing. To me, the history behind any social construct is irrelevant; it will be bad or good regardless of how long it's been in place or how it started.

The insitution of marriage has been changed and by your logic, "degraded" in the past; from a way for men to receive assurance of their paternal heritage to a way for men to do it with more than 1 woman (polygamy was legal in some cultures) to a business partnership between nobles for securing their financial futures; then from that to what we have today. Legalizing monogamous gay marriage would redefine marriage as being, literally, a "relationship between two adults". I don't see what's so inherently degrading about that concept of marriage compared to what we have now, which usually means "a relationship between two adults of opposing gender".

You're right. As I've stated before in this thread, tradition is not automatically good. Nor is novelty by the way. However, if it is good and the best that can be provided, it should be preserved and not discarded for something less in value. Some traditions, such as gender roles, are essential in being. They are based in ethics, this is true, but the essence of their truth is based on metaphysics and that is no different in the case of gender roles. Your typical man is larger, strong, and more productive than your typical woman. Only women are capable of pregnancy and birth. Your typical woman is better at raising children and have skills suited for taking care of a house instead of providing for the family financially. Granted, not all men and not all women are equal. Some women are stronger than men. Some men make better homemakers. This is why gender roles are not prescribed by the government, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be preserved by couples. You must recognize these essential differences between men and women for the same reason you must recognize the essential differences between humans and the other animals. For a human to act like a human, he must be aware that he is human. For an adult to act like an adult, he must realize he's too old for childish behavior. For a man to act like a man, he must realize that he best provides for the family what the wife cannot. You can reinterpret and modify reality when it's possible, but you can't escape it.

This is, in essence, the summary of what my response would be to your previous reply that was directed to me. I considered not posting this because I'm convinced just as I ever was that this will not change your opinion. However, your reply to Plzhelpmelearn sparked interest in me to post a reply to you, not for your sake, but for my own; to get my thoughts into writing so I can prove to myself that what I'm thinking is reasonable.

Genetic_Code

I believe the (true) generalisations you state about men and women are far less significant in society today that they ever were. Perhaps this is a reason for peoples' more abstract approach to their own sexualities and those around them these days.

What I mean is that there is no real need for male strength today as there used to be. As an example, even 20 years ago in the UK, bags of cement or plaster used to weigh 40kg. I found this out during a stint as a labourer on a building site. A woman joined the firm and did some labouring and she really struggled - being unable to lift anything. Today, due to health and safety, bags of cement and plaster weigh only 25kg. So female labourers are quote common now.

Most work activities are not injurious to health, like they used to be. Things have become far more systematic then ever before. Projects are more risk-analysed, tasks are automated, managed and controlled. At the other end of the scale, women have far greater access to learning then ever before and show a general tendencyfor doing better than men academically. Men also have more more equal rights over the custody of and access to their offspring. This has produced a far more egalitarian marketplace for work, in the UK at least; enabling women (such as my wife) to succeed in industry.

The previous paradigm of women doing the home while men earned the bread has been railroaded by the current structure of society and availability of education and nature of work to all in free democracies. But for some reason, unlike you, I really don't see anything too bad in reversing roles, genders or standards to suit yourself and the people you love most within these new freedoms society offers us. Perhaps that's because I'm the the position of largely being a male house-husband with no children right now!