Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[slackjawed]

kids are a lot of work, at least if you want to give them the gift a "good raising". I think kids deserve two parents, a mother and father.
I see no reason they cannot be of the same sex.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Good article....

Why Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

If people like you had gotten their way regarding the changes in marriage that allowed the races to mix, we wouldn't have Obama as President

 

[Samson]

Know what I've seen really hurting kids? Divorce. Of my son's five best friends, he's the only one with an intact family.

Bravo.




It shall be interesting to be able to compare the rate of queer divorce to straight divorce.

I am not certain what argurment there may be to support any notion that queer marriages will be any less transient or capricious than straight ones.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Even though I am single, I don't see what the big deal is. What others chose to call their union (whatever it may be composed of) does not have any bearing on the interpersonal relationships of others, in my opinion.

State licensing: Totally unnecessary.

Why should married people, straight or otherwise, get a better tax deal (among other special privileges afforded by the state) than you or I get?

Hell just froze over: Dante agrees with the USMB Oddball Dude

 

[Skull Pilot]

Good article....

Why Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

If people like you had gotten their way regarding the changes in marriage that allowed the races to mix, we wouldn't have Obama as President

Gee wouldn't that be just awful?

(sarcasm)

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It takes a village to raise a child.

 

[Seawytch]

Know what I've seen really hurting kids? Divorce. Of my son's five best friends, he's the only one with an intact family.

Bravo.




It shall be interesting to be able to compare the rate of queer divorce to straight divorce.

I am not certain what argurment there may be to support any notion that queer marriages will be any less transient or capricious than straight ones.

Nor do I. There is no reason to think we'll be any worse or any better at marriage than our heterosexual counterparts...just as we're no better or worse at parenting.

With parenting these days however, we do have a step up in that we can't get pregnant by accident. We have to carefully plan our children and don't usually do so until we're secure in the relationship. This is not scientific in any way, but the average for the couples I know that choose to have children is four to five years into the relationship. And this is unique to couples who have children together. Children of divorce because one of the spouses turned out to be gay is a different matter and those families have their own challenges.

Still no reason to deny us the same cash and prizes everyone else gets for pairing off...regardless of parenting status.

 

[Samson]

With parenting these days however, we do have a step up in that we can't get pregnant by accident. We have to carefully plan our children and don't usually do so until we're secure in the relationship.

This is actually a very good point, and will hopefully balance the numerous physical and psychological issues that are indemic within the queer population.

 

[Connery]

While there is no perfect time to have a child, love is what it takes. While the primary caregiver(s) provide for the child, no one person raises a child, it takes many who influence that child views and perspectives. A motherless or fatherless child can be through no one's fault, death, a fortuitous event may take a parent away. What counts is stability and best efforts by those who chose to care for the child.

 

[midcan5]

FD - I didn't read the entire piece as it is so full of holes in thought that it isn't worth the effort. Someone tell this guy laws are argued and/or agreed upon by everyone, and eventually because people disagree, they are made formal through our courts. Imagine laws being returned to the citizens? For what and why? The highest court makes laws for the land.

Next he tells us what marriage is except he leaves out the fact that marriage exists for lots of reasons and having children is not always one of them. 'Anthropological truth' tell us men and women are different? Shit has he ever seen a naked person? I don't think we need 'anthropological truth' to show us the difference, whatever A.T. may be. And how about all those single parents? Many do a darn good job.

Next he writes, 'Marriage benefits everyone because separating childbearing and childrearing from marriage burdens innocent bystanders: not just children, but the whole community who must step in to provide for their well-being and upbringing....' This man must never leave the [un]-think tank as he is missing modern America society where unless husband and wife work, they often can't make ends meet. Ryan needs to check out modern America.

Marriage is a social and legal relationship sanctioned by law, it is a commitment to another, with it comes privileges and responsibilities. Those privileges and responsibilities should be granted to all couples who wish to marry. The times have changed and the changes will come.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Good article....

Why Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

Actually it’s a very poor article.

Its fundamental error is that marriage equality has nothing to do with ‘redefining marriage.’

Indeed, same-sex couples not only seek access to marriage law as required of the states by the 14th Amendment, they seek access to marriage exactly as it exists today, unchanged and unaltered. Same-sex couples seek to protect and preserve the institution of marriage.

Millions of same-sex couples currently have their own children living with them in committed relationships; these children will continue to live with their parents whether or not their state of residence acknowledges that relationship in the context of marriage.

In fact, there is no objective, documented evidence whatsoever that children in same-sex homes are at some sort of ‘risk.’ The evidence concludes the opposite, that children in same-sex families are as happy and well adjusted as children in opposite-sex families. See: Hollingsworth v. Perry.

The attempt by the right to cloud the issue of marriage equality by implying that children of these relationships are at some sort of ‘risk’ is shameful and repugnant.

 

[The Rabbi]

Marriage is between one man and one woman. It has traditionally always been that way in this country. People who want it to be between 2 men and one woman, or 2 women and one man, or any other combination are seeking to redefine the traditional notion of marriage.
That is obvious to anyone with two functioning brain cells.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Society has an interest in fostering stable families, which means one mother, one father. This is why it is tax advantaged. Studies quoted here look like advocacy literature rather than real research. For those who want gov't out of the marriage business, do you also want gov't out of the divorce, custody, adoption and inheritance business? Because those are all related.
States have the power over the marriage franchise. This is pretty much settled law. The libtards want to rewrite this so they can appeal popular ballot initiatives to gay judges who will be sympathetic to overturningthe rule of law.

Obviously you’re unaware this makes no sense whatsoever.

It is incumbent upon opponents of equal protection rights to justify the state’s interest in denying same-sex couples access to marriage law. In this they have failed.

Although the states are at liberty to compose marriage law as they see fit, they are compelled by the Constitution to allow access to that law by all citizens, regardless their sexual orientation. The doctrine of coverture is present in no state’s marriage law. The marriage law of every state establishes a contract between two equal partners, where gender is irrelevant. Consequently there is no reason why a same-sex couple should not have access to their state’s marriage law.

Your opposition to equal protection rights is thus motivated solely by animus toward same-sex couples, and ignorance of the Constitution and its case law.

 

[rightwinger]

Good article....

Why Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

It might make sense if marriage were defined as a union to produce children

Since it is not and there is no legal requirement that marriages even attempt to produce children, it shoots your entire argument down

 

[Grandma]

I know hetero parents that are married to each other, hetero parents that divorced and married new spouses, unmarried couples, gay couples, and both male and female single parents.

You know what? Some of the kids have become very successsful in life, some became total losers, and most fell somewhere in between.

Not only did the success/failure spread across all of the parents, it spreads among siblings within a family unit. Yes, I know people that grew up and had great lives while their siblings were criminals.

There are many factors that determine a child's success in life. Marriage isn't a major consideration.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Marriage is between one man and one woman. It has traditionally always been that way in this country. People who want it to be between 2 men and one woman, or 2 women and one man, or any other combination are seeking to redefine the traditional notion of marriage.
That is obvious to anyone with two functioning brain cells.

That some discriminatory practice has been ‘historic’ or ‘traditional’ is Constitutionally and legally irrelevant. That something has been perceived as ‘always been’ is not justification for retaining a measure offensive to the Constitution:

[T]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

 

[rightwinger]

We allow divorced people to remarry

Haven't they already defiled the great institution of marriage enough?

They have done more to destroy the institution of marriage than gays have

 

[Skull Pilot]

It takes a village to raise a child.

No it doesn't

 

[Agit8r]

I'm obliged to point out that monogamous marriage is itself a redefinition.

Crackpot Doom Scandal: "Traditional Marriage"

 

[Seawytch]

We allow divorced people to remarry

Haven't they already defiled the great institution of marriage enough?

They have done more to destroy the institution of marriage than gays have

Wisconsin tried to stop divorced people from remarrying. The SCOTUS had to rule on it...that's one of the times they declared marriage a fundamental right.