Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[Seawytch]

"The truth is, my generation knows better than any generation before us how broken marriages or the absence of a mother or father can devastate a generation"

Why I Marched for Marriage | TheBlaze.com

Divorce is the devil you oppose. Why pick on people that want to marry instead of those that divorce?

We want our children to have parents who are legally married. Where are the family values in opposing that?

 

[KevinWestern]

Vintage liberal idiocy here.... The only thing "debunked" was his own point

Give a liberal more than 30 seconds and they will inevitably contradict themselves.

Dummy here starts out by talking about how we can't accept "traditional" because everything is constantly "evolving" - even language (citing we would all be talking "caveman" if not for language evolving). So what does liberal "genius" boy do next? Proceeds to point out how marriage through out history has been about property, division of labor, and even same-sex relationships.

So he starts by saying you can't look to history, and he finishes by saying look at history to support his position

God love you liberals... you are a hilarious bunch

I found this Discussion Interesting and wanted to Focus on it Specifically...

You can say that we as a Species are Evolving Socially...

Rome was a Filthy Orgyfest right out in Public a LONG time ago...

Just a short time ago in the 50's here in America putting a Married Couple in the same Bed on TV was just about Considered Porn.

Now we have Vulgarity and Nudity in the Evenings on Network TV.

But here's a Fact...

We are NOT Evolving as a Species.

As long as Humans have been on Earth we continue this Species one way...

Man and Woman.

Homosexuals aren't Evolving into Reproductive Entities with one another.

They are Designed and Equipped to Couple with the Opposite Sex.

Always have have been... Always will be.

Why they are either Wired to Defy this or Free Will is being taken Advantage of regarding their Sexual Choices is Irrelevant.

Marriage is not Evolving.

Marriage is a Reflection of our "very Existence and Survival".

But please... Tell me I'm Wrong in this Conlcusion.

Show me where (2) Men or (2) Woman have EVER Created Life Naturally.

Until then...



peace...

I agree...we went from Roman orgies, back to liberal ones....Hedo day 2013...see we evolved pretty well, until the 60s, now they want us to bang whomever, live in grass huts and pretty much live like the monkeyman......liberals are funny.

Marriage serves a lot of purposes for both the couple and the community, and personally I find it a bit shallow and perverted that you guys seem to only focus solely on the sex aspect. Sex this, sex that, gay sex doesn't produce kids, ect, ect.

Quite frankly, it's weird, and leads me to believe that you folks don't have much personal experience on what makes a good marriage. Therefore, I can't take your opinion seriously.

.

 

[bodecea]

When the GOP convention did this, , for Bristol Palin and her boy bastard, the social conservatives waived the white flag of surrender on the issue of marriage and raising bastards.

Social conservatives need to live socially conservative lives to show everyone how wonderful they supposedly are , instead of trying to police the lives of everyone else.

I sometimes think that that boy thanks his lucky stars that McCain lost the election, or else he would have had to marry Bristol. She probably thanks her lucky stars the same way.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Actually, a married couple pays more in taxes. Where they usually make up for it is when children are counted as deductions.

Obviously, the wingnuts who want to fill in the pool rather than let gays swim in it are living a pipe dream. There are too many legal things tied into the institution of marriage.

While the states do have onus of setting marriage law, the federal government has set down when a marriage law violates constitutional rights. Loving v. Virginia, for instance, struck down the mixed marriage laws because they violated the 14th Amendment rights.

Now, of the two cases coming up, I think that Judge Walker's ruling in Perry was a bit of a stretch, and even the Ninth Circuit dialed him back a bit.

Conversely, the DOMA related case is the one to watch, because even the people who passed DOMA admit it is unconstitutional.

I agree that the SCOTUS will rule narrowly on Prop 8, making marriage legal only in CA, but they will strike down the clearly unconstitutional DOMA.

Then we can file joint state AND federal taxes........

 

[bodecea]

Marriage is nothing but a property contract.

Gay people have property too.

 

[bodecea]

The states where people call it quits the most frequently are Arkansas, Maine, Oklahoma, Alabama, Kentucky, and Alaska.

Strange how the trailer dwelling bible thumping crackers in jesusland have higher divorce rates

No, what is odd is that a professor would ignore the data from Maine and Alaska.



Gee, could a Sociology Professor be impartial, and subjective!

I believe this was in the link, was it not?

of the 20 states with the highest divorce rates, 14 voted for John McCain in 2008.

...nothing saying that ALL the states were red.

 

[bodecea]

What's the big taboo over 'redefining' something?

Wasn't the Constitution itself one of the most significant redefinitions of how people should be governed?

Didn't we eventually redefine the status of blacks in our society? Didn't we redefine the status of women in society?

We are constantly redefining the 2nd amendment to include the type of weapons never conceived of by the founders....or anyone historically, for that matter.

 

[bodecea]

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.

I have already stated the state's interest in not allowing same sex couples. Once you open the door to same sex couples then "marriage" is a meaningless concept. No society has long endured without a strong concept of marriage.

Poor Rabbi...to him, the concept of marriage is so frail that if you let gays have it, it will shrivel up and die.

 

[bodecea]

Marriage is nothing but a property contract.

And women were the property

I realize reality is tough for you.

They were. As were the children...boys til they came of age, girls til they were married off.

Ever seen the father walk his daughter down the aisle. While touching today, it has a more possessive origin.

 

[bodecea]

I realize reality is tough for you.

It is the original purpose of marriage

Like I said. Life's tough. It's even tougher if you're stupid.

^ Well, you seem to be a life expert on that...so it must be true.

 

[bodecea]

No nation that has ever existed has normalized homosexual relationships and survived. Not one.

So in order to ‘survive’ we must ignore the Constitution and violate the civil liberties of citizens.

Good plan.

We heard this gloom and doom nonsense in 1954 when schools were desegregated, not only have we ‘survived’ but we’ve flourished; more Americans enjoy greater freedom today than at any time in our Nation’s history.

Acknowledging the equal protection rights of same-sex couples will further even greater freedom and liberty for every American.

I was having a conversation with Katzdogz on another thread...she disagrees about desegregation.

 

[P@triot]

What's the big taboo over 'redefining' something?

Wasn't the Constitution itself one of the most significant redefinitions of how people should be governed?

Didn't we eventually redefine the status of blacks in our society? Didn't we redefine the status of women in society?

We are constantly redefining the 2nd amendment to include the type of weapons never conceived of by the founders....or anyone historically, for that matter.

Yeah - and that's the problem.

 

[P@triot]

So in order to ‘survive’ we must ignore the Constitution and violate the civil liberties of citizens.

On my GOD - the one person on this board (with the exception of OhPooPaDoo of course) who has pissed on the U.S. Constitution the most, denounced it the most, perverted it the most, and screamed the loudest that it is no longer relevant is now a "bleeding heart" Constitutional conservative

oh man, I can't take it, my ribs are hiring from laughing

Immediately, all I could think of was

[ame=http://youtu.be/XVh3Z_0FGGY]Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay - Interrogation - YouTube[/ame]

Hey CCJ - "is it freedom o'clock"?!?

 

[P@triot]

Great article that covers all of the major problems with dumbocrats destroying the institution of marriage. Hey, they destroy everything else (economies, societies, education) why should marriage be any different?

Redefine Marriage, Make Government Bigger | TheBlaze.com

 

[JoeB131]

Great article that covers all of the major problems with dumbocrats destroying the institution of marriage. Hey, they destroy everything else (economies, societies, education) why should marriage be any different?

Redefine Marriage, Make Government Bigger | TheBlaze.com

I would think the bigger threat to marriage would be divorce and infidelity, not gays getting them.

But given how many big name Republicans get divorces, and cheat on their spouses, they really don't talk about that all that much.

 

[jtpr312]

The fact is that kids do not need a mother and a father. If they did, it would be illegal to be a single parent. Instead, single women have babies all the time, and no one bats an eye.

Actually EVERY study ever done says that children do best when raised in a home with both a mother and a father. As for no one batting an eye, all that proves is that the American public has lost it's morals, not that there's nothing wrong with it. Here's but a few examples;



Sexual activity. In a study of 700 adolescents, researchers found that "compared to families with two natural parents living in the home, adolescents from single-parent families have been found to engage in greater and earlier sexual activity."
Source: Carol W. Metzler, et al. "The Social Context for Risky Sexual Behavior Among Adolescents," Journal of Behavioral Medicine 17 (1994).


A myriad of maladies. Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.

Drinking problems. Teenagers living in single-parent households are more likely to abuse alcohol and at an earlier age compared to children reared in two-parent households
Source: Terry E. Duncan, Susan C. Duncan and Hyman Hops, "The Effects of Family Cohesiveness and Peer Encouragement on the Development of Adolescent Alcohol Use: A Cohort-Sequential Approach to the Analysis of Longitudinal Data," Journal of Studies on Alcohol 55 (1994).


Drug Use: "...the absence of the father in the home affects significantly the behavior of adolescents and results in the greater use of alcohol and marijuana."
Source: Deane Scott Berman, "Risk Factors Leading to Adolescent Substance Abuse," Adolescence 30 (1995)


Sexual abuse. A study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse found that the majority of the children came from disrupted or single-parent homes; only 31 percent of the children lived with both biological parents. Although stepfamilies make up only about 10 percent of all families, 27 percent of the abused children lived with either a stepfather or the mother's boyfriend.
Source: Beverly Gomes-Schwartz, Jonathan Horowitz, and Albert P. Cardarelli, "Child Sexual Abuse Victims and Their Treatment," U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Child Abuse. Researchers in Michigan determined that "49 percent of all child abuse cases are committed by single mothers."
Source: Joan Ditson and Sharon Shay, "A Study of Child Abuse in Lansing, Michigan," Child Abuse and Neglect, 8 (1984).

Deadly predictions. A family structure index -- a composite index based on the annual rate of children involved in divorce and the percentage of families with children present that are female-headed -- is a strong predictor of suicide among young adult and adolescent white males.
Source: Patricia L. McCall and Kenneth C. Land, "Trends in White Male Adolescent, Young-Adult and Elderly Suicide: Are There Common Underlying Structural Factors?" Social Science Research 23, 1994.

High risk. Fatherless children are at dramatically greater risk of suicide.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.

Suicidal Tendencies. In a study of 146 adolescent friends of 26 adolescent suicide victims, teens living in single-parent families are not only more likely to commit suicide but also more likely to suffer from psychological disorders, when compared to teens living in intact families.
Source: David A. Brent, et al. "Post-traumatic Stress Disorder in Peers of Adolescent Suicide Victims: Predisposing Factors and Phenomenology." Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 34, 1995.

Confused identities. Boys who grow up in father-absent homes are more likely that those in father-present homes to have trouble establishing appropriate sex roles and gender identity.
Source: P.L. Adams, J.R. Milner, and N.A. Schrepf, Fatherless Children, New York, Wiley Press, 1984.

Psychiatric Problems. In 1988, a study of preschool children admitted to New Orleans hospitals as psychiatric patients over a 34-month period found that nearly 80 percent came from fatherless homes.
Source: Jack Block, et al. "Parental Functioning and the Home Environment in Families of Divorce," Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27 (1988)

Emotional distress. Children living with a never-married mother are more likely to have been treated for emotional problems.
Source: L. Remez, "Children Who Don't Live with Both Parents Face Behavioral Problems," Family Planning Perspectives (January/February 1992).

Uncooperative kids. Children reared by a divorced or never-married mother are less cooperative and score lower on tests of intelligence than children reared in intact families. Statistical analysis of the behavior and intelligence of these children revealed "significant detrimental effects" of living in a female-headed household. Growing up in a female-headed household remained a statistical predictor of behavior problems even after adjusting for differences in family income.
Source: Greg L. Duncan, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Pamela Kato Klebanov, "Economic Deprivation and Early Childhood Development," Child Development 65 (1994).
Unstable families, unstable lives. Compared to peers in two-parent homes, black children in single-parent households are more likely to engage in troublesome behavior, and perform poorly in school.
Source: Tom Luster and Hariette Pipes McAdoo, "Factors Related to the Achievement and Adjustment of Young African-American Children." Child Development 65 (1994): 1080-1094

 

[wihosa]

The tide of history is on the side of expanding rights. Gays will have the right to marry and probably soon. Afterwards all those who opposed it will be looked at the same way as those who opposed inter racial marriage 50 years ago while making silly predictions of doom for our society.

 

[JoeB131]

The fact is that kids do not need a mother and a father. If they did, it would be illegal to be a single parent. Instead, single women have babies all the time, and no one bats an eye.

Actually EVERY study ever done says that children do best when raised in a home with both a mother and a father. As for no one batting an eye, all that proves is that the American public has lost it's morals, not that there's nothing wrong with it. Here's but a few examples;


-1094

So what does any of that have to do with gays getting married. What you've shown is that single parenthood and divorce are bad, but you asshats on the right keep going on about the gays like they are the problem.

 

[Seawytch]

Actually EVERY study ever done says that children do best when raised in a home with both a mother and a father.

The studies show children have the best outcomes with two parents. The sex of the parents is of little or no consequence. Children need parents that love them unconditionally, period. Gays can do that and straights can do that equally well.

 

[P@triot]

The tide of history is on the side of expanding rights. Gays will have the right to marry and probably soon. Afterwards all those who opposed it will be looked at the same way as those who opposed inter racial marriage 50 years ago while making silly predictions of doom for our society.

You lose all credibility when you use the term "rights" with this issue. There is no "right" to get married - even by heterosexual couples.

Isn't it remarkable that libtards try to take actual Constitutional rights away from the American people (like the right to bear arms), while trying to grant "rights" that have never existed (like healthcare, marriage, and housing)?

It's just more evidence of how completely unhinged they have become...