I'm not gay. And so presumably I have as much to lose as any other straight male if SSM becomes the norm in the US. I fully support the efforts to make this happen. But if any of the following things were true I would be unequivocally against it. - if children raised by gay parents demonstrated psychological problems later in life at a greater rate than children raised by "traditional" parents. - if the incidence of child molestation or neglect took place at greater rate among these children than ones raised traditionally. - if there were some force that caused a significant number of traditional marriages to implode. So far not only has there been no data to show that any of these things are true, there is plenty of evidence that it isn't. Clearly the third option is crazy, but plenty of people here seem to believe that the other two are true. Except any unbiased look at the data says otherwise. And the data isn't ambiguous or too close to call. It's astonishingly consistent. Can anybody provide some data that contradicts what I've said? If the prop 8 folks couldn't bring themselves to present a single study to support their side is there any explanation other than they knew they would be forced to defend any data they provided and, unlike on some website, they would be obliged to do so honestly or fear serious legal repercussions? If there is a good argument against gay marriage, one that makes use of properly designed research and whose methodology is consistent with the way modern scientists do these kinds of things, I'd love to see it. Because, to be honest, if any of the horrible things people claim are true about about gay marriage, if any of the risks were even worth considering after looking at the data, I'd be the first person working to make sure it never became legal. So let's here it?
Just a couple of points concerning these: Would preventing same-sex couples from marrying fix this hypothetical problem? I assert that it would not. The only way to get there is to prevent them from raising children at all. Denying same sex couples marriage recognition hasn't prevented them from raising children thus far. Would preventing same-sex couples from marrying fix this hypothetical problem? I assert that it would not, for much the same reason as in the previous item. Denying same sex couples marriage recognition hasn't prevented them from raising children thus far. If there was credible evidence of these things, we'd have seen it by now, presented by well-qualified and respected experts working in the associated fields. We have not, and I predict that we won't in this thread, either.
Obviously I'm not on the other side of this, but just wanted to say those are some difficult questions to answer. The difficulty is accounting for bias, both for and against homosexual couples. One bias FOR homosexual couples is the fact that a disproportionate number of their children will come from pre-planned arrangements... either from having a planned sexual encounter with the opposite sex, artificial insemination, or adoptions. This may give a bias in favor of homosexual couples when compared to heterosexual "whoops, condom broke" pregnancies. Of course there's a lot of bias against homosexual couples that would have to be accounted for as well. Stigma against the gay parents is known to lead to depression anxiety among gay men and women, making them less willing and able to be social in their community, and less able to bond with the child. Depressed and anxious parents are just not good parents. This is more likely a product of the stigma they face, and not of the homosexuality itself though. Nevertheless, this is not the child's fault - regardless of the cause, this is not a good reason to put a child in a bad home. Similarly, not only do the prospective parents face stigma that damages them, the child itself faces stigma for having gay parents. So society can again play a roll in causing the damage to the child raised by homosexuals. And then we have to consider where the children come from... homosexual parents will practically always have adopted children, non-biological children, or children that came from divorce. Children of this type are more likely to have issues, regardless of if they were raised by homosexuals or heterosexuals. But heterosexuals will have disproportionally more biological children with fewer issues. Similarly, abuse is more common in non-biological situations, which will again have a bias against homosexual couples where one or both of the parents is not biological. That said, most studies of gay parents focus on lesbians, likely because it's easier for them to impregnate themselves or gain custody of a child after a divorce vs their gay male counterparts. As a consequence of this, statistics will be skewed in favor of lesbian couples, because women are inherently less likely to abuse. And I'm sure there's plenty of other issues to consider as well. Comparing apples to apples is quite difficult on this subject. On what studies I've seen, there are noted psychological differences, but they're not described as advantages or disadvantages. The children are regarded as just as well adjusted. That's a tough one lol. Some might say it will lead to the implosion, but I'd say the decline in marriage and the development of same-sex marriage are just side effects of a different cause. Legal adultery, no-fault divorce, feminism, and equal rights/opportunity for women are the cause of the decline in marriage, and also the cause for the development of same sex marriage. I made this post a while back that I thought gave a good, brief explanation of the history and changes in marriage:
No, nor do I, and I hope it's obvious that I don't. It's another crazy component of the, say, the prop 8 rhetoric, or the talking points so casually tossed about on FOX: the problems that will apparently materialize the day after all the gays go and get gay married with each other have been around forever and, realistically have been honed to perfection not by homosexuals but by the rest of us. To this day it's true that a young boy is far safer, statistically , locked in the superdome with 1500 pride paraders than 1500 god fearing straight-identified white men. But the first half of that sentence is enough to cause vomiting and nightmares to a lot of people. Which is a little like avoiding skiing because you fear shark attacks - the fear can barely be called "wrong" it so heroically misses the point. The fact that nobody, at least not any of the prop 8 people, seem very interested in solving real, ongoing problems they claim won't arrive until the gays come to town. And if they care less about an abused boy if he was abused by a nice married man than by Paul Lynde what can we conclude about these fools? Actually I'll leave that to someone else.
We're obviously an agreeable little choral trifecta here, and I haven't been here long enough to know if a thread like this will attract any defenders from the other side. I've got to imagine that what we're saying is as horrifying to them as the contents of the threads they start are to us. But there never seems to be any shortage of people here willing to explain, using venn diagrams and iambic pentameter if necessary, how profoundly, myopically flawed their thinking is. That aught to go over quite well, don't you think? It's funny, I sent out invitations to everyone at the other branch. They must have gotten held up in the post.
welcome fish, it's always good to have some fresh blood in sub forums and hope you stick around anyway, I am the enemy. I am a bigot, homophobe, POS or any other insult you can toss my way Allow me to qualify my position so it is crystal clear I do not see in colors and my children were raised the same i do not think how someone has sex has any bearing at all in who or what they are I know that the only difference between a homosexual and heterosexual is how they have sex. Their hearts beat the same, they breathe the same air, can cry, laugh, enjoy a good SEC football game (best conference in the land by the way) I could care less if you are a straight Dr or a gay Dr, please make the pain in my tummy go away is all that I care about. Allow me to continue. I see that govt has gotten too large and people look to the govt for things when the govt is only supposed to have what we allow. I see single people in the USA treated unfairly with regard to insurance, social security and more. I view marriage as something that 2 people should do in a church, synagogue, by the beach, in a biker gang, on a ship.......whatever. The govt should not be in the business of marriage AT ALL with that said, I do not support creating another little group/silo for people who have sex differently and asking the govt to make MORE RULES. I want them out of marriage completely and to treat all of us as individuals. it's a crossroads, those who love and support big govt will go to the govt and ask them to bestow something upon gay people. those of us who abhor big govt and want to see it downsized, and embrace the Constitution want govt to back the heck off. Then, people become individuals and if you want to get married then it becomes a personal bond between 2,3,4,5 people, even incestual couples and no govt intervention
you often present yourself as the opposition, but disagreements are usually about minor points, not the greater principles at stake. Generally speaking, I think most "gay marriage" supporters are open to your scenario where marriage is eliminated in law, perhaps replaced with a similar & unregulated institution. Where we tend to disagree is that we don't see marriage being removed from law in the first place, so our arguments usually revolve around how legal marriage should be changed... not that we disagree in principle. That said, if you like being "the enemy", here you go
On the other sie of the coin, the likelihood of two people raising mentally challenged children has not been a barrier to their marriage... as long as it's heterosexual. Two people of any degree of mental illness (so long as capable of giving consent) can marry, without regard to the likelihood of them raising mentally unstable children. Similarly, a convicted child molester has the right to marry a convicted child murderer, so long as they're heterosexual. Not to say marriage could not/should not be limited if gays are proven to be substantially more dangerous, but fact is those considerations are not even used when deciding if heterosexual couples can marry. Unless you count Sec's response as a "defender", which I don't exactly, I'd say you have about a 25% chance of getting a response from someone trying to prove that homosexual men are pedophiles, and a 25% chance of someone trying to prove that gays raise disadvantaged children, and about a 1% chance of someone willing to talk about the implosion of marriage. It may take several days, or even weeks, for the thread to get noticed. The "gay rights" forum is more-or-less out of sight, out of mind. The top three forums on the main page get the most activity.
And how exactly do you expect such a "demonstration" to manifest itself to the public at large? And just how many generations do you expect it will take for such problems to be "demonstrated"? Enough that by the time the "demonstration" is complete it will be too late to address them, maybe? Actually there is none which can be taken as credible except in the minds of the disgracefully credulous. And exactly what good is data when we are not privy to all the details associated with its acquisition? And why exactly would that be particularly compelling, seeing that WRT human nature, "modern scientists" can be counted on for nothing so much as rationalizations for inhuman behavior?
Truth does tend to appear to be devoid of substance in the eyes of those for whom lies are more vital than oxygen. Nothing I can do about that.
I'll hazard a guess that your "answers" amount to speculation, or proof by correlation (as opposed to causation), which are not proofs at all. But I guess if you're just playing coy with your questions, then we won't know
I suspect if government were to remain involved, Sec would argue that it should be extended to any two consenting adults, while you would argue that it must only be extended to homosexual couples, because you two disagree in priinciple.
You suspect wrong. I'm open to a good argument about why it might not be made available to certain situations, but in the absence of a good reasoning, i'd be happy with a libertarian approach to the matter.
No, youve already defined "romance" as the fundamental element that leads to stable households and therefore only "romantic" couples must be encouraged to form these stable households.
Thats not their side. Thats the strawman you set up to knock down. Heterosexual couples havent been encouraged for thousands of years to marry because it causes no harm, but have instead done so to create a BENEFIT to society. Marriage to my dog wouldnt lead to any of the things you mention, but thats not an argument for canine marriage.
That's a pretty wild guess. The only way you'll ever know is to try to answer them straight up. Not that you will succeed; but the attempt will be instructive, albeit uncomfortably so.
This again... Dixon, what benefit to society does two sterile heterosexual people getting married have? How about the quicky marriages leading to quicky divorces? Elderly couples? Welfare mamas with 8 different baby daddies? Last I checked they could all still marry... Multiple times even. Are you gonna now start about how you want to marry your brother - thats normally your next line of "reasoning"
This again... Dixon, what benefit to society does two sterile heterosexual people getting married have? How about the quicky marriages leading to quicky divorces? Elderly couples? Welfare mamas with 8 different baby daddies? Last I checked they could all still marry... Multiple times even. Are you gonna now start about how you want to marry your brother - thats normally your next line of "reasoning" And since you have short and long term memory problems, your dog cannot consent - thanks for playing
