Marriage's benefits R4 D kids, not the adults

[LuvRPgrl]

As usual, the libs are trying to define the arguement based on false assumptions.

1. Marriage is primarily for the benefit of the adults.
2. Marriage is a right, not a privledge.
3. More than half of the married couples end up divorced. simply not true
4. Kids can be raised just as well by homosexual parents, as heterosexual. Truth is, we simply dont know. So, are we to use our kids as guina pigs to find out? I think not.

IF the institution of marriage is in such bad shape, why such the passion and insistence that same gender marriage be legalized?

If we, as a society, took kids and raised them on a farm, kind of like a communal thing, then most of us could care less who would get married. Marriage is an institution, which is a privledge, NOT A RIGHT, to promote healthier enviorments for kids to grow up in.

WHen marriages break up, what is the most hotly contested issue? Custody of the kids. Marriages without kids, celebs aside, usually go fairly uncontested, when compared to those with custody issues.

Peoples dreams, "To get married and start a family", not just "to get married"

 

[mattskramer]

Kids can be raised just as well by homosexual parents, as heterosexual. Truth is, we simply don’t know. So, are we to use our kids as guinea pigs to find out? I think not.

I could knock down this tiresome rhetoric, as I often do in other threads, but I just don’t have the time today so I’ll just criticize this point on two fronts.

If it were not for taking chances and experimenting, where would we be today? Let’s not try this new drug. Let’s not allow women to vote ion American politics yet. Let’s not try letting slaves go free.

Here is a late breaking news flash for you. Homosexual couples are raising kids, and the kids are doing just fine.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids

Children growing up in same-sex parental households do not necessarily have differences in self-esteem, gender identity, or emotional problems from children growing up in heterosexual parent homes…

"The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way," she tells WebMD. "In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures."

Kids from gay families are doing just fine. Check this out.

http://www.colage.org/

One more comment. You do not have to be married in order to raise children and you do not have to raise children in order to be married. In other words, there are single parents and single people who want kids but not marriage. On the flip side, some married couples choose to not have kids.

 

[jillian]

Marriage was and always will be an economic arrangement.

 

[eots]

Marriage was and always will be an economic arrangement.

nonsense thats a after thought...you put your left foot in put right foot out you do the hokey pokey and thats what its all about...its not until later the economic arraignment begins...rasing children in a partnership is a economic arrangement not marraige..not anymore

 

[jillian]

nonsense thats a after thought...you put your left foot in put right foot out you do the hokey pokey and thats what its all about...its not until later the economic arraignment begins...rasing children in a partnership is a economic arrangement not marraige..not anymore

Wrong....

When we look at the marriage customs of our ancestors, we discover several striking facts. For example, for the most of Western history, marriage was not a mere personal matter concerning only husband and wife, but rather the business of their two families which brought them together. Most marriages, therefore, were arranged. Moreover, the wife usually had much fewer rights than her husband and was expected to be subservient to him. To a considerable extent, marriage was also an economic arrangement. There was little room for romantic love, and even simple affection was not considered essential. Procreation and cooperation were the main marital duties.

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html

Marriage based on love and attraction is a relatively new phenomenon. As for children... well, that was part of the economic package... children to work the land or the business or carry on the name and inherit the wealth.

 

[trobinett]

Jillian posts:

Marriage based on love and attraction is a relatively new phenomenon. As for children... well, that was part of the economic package... children to work the land or the business or carry on the name and inherit the wealth.

First, love, and attraction as a basis for marrage is NOT a new phenomenon.

Second, to children being slave labor, I agree.

Third, carrying on the name, it seldom works, make your own call on that one.

 

[dread]

Here is a late breaking news flash for you. Homosexual couples are raising kids, and the kids are doing just fine.

No they are not...

gruntledcenter.blogspot.com/2006/03/gay-parent-research-full-of-holes.html


And for every study you put up as evidence I am sure I can find a completly differing opinion. AND...If you want to go so far and say you will not take into consideration ANY of my studies that I put up because of where my sources come from just remember where YOUR studies are coming from.

NOT from unbiased, free thinking, people ( aka so called doctors and counselors and such) you want so desperatly to believe in.

 

[mattskramer]

No they are not...

gruntledcenter.blogspot.com/2006/03/gay-parent-research-full-of-holes.html

And for every study you put up as evidence I am sure I can find a completly differing opinion. AND...If you want to go so far and say you will not take into consideration ANY of my studies that I put up because of where my sources come from just remember where YOUR studies are coming from.

NOT from unbiased, free thinking, people ( aka so called doctors and counselors and such) you want so desperatly to believe in.

I’ve already presented you with statistically reasoned positions held by the American Academy of Pediatrics of all organizations – and you present me with what – little more than one persons opinion on an obscure blog!

“WebMd” and the “American Academy of Pediatrics” are two fine medically based relatively unbiased sources that have each posted references to many journalistic quality studies that show that there is no significant difference between children raised by homosexuals or heterosexuals.

Here is an article Medscape - another reputable peer-review source.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477

An analysis of multiple studies of 500 households shows that rearing children in a same-sex household does not affect the their self-esteem, gender identity, or emotional health, a Boston researcher reported.

Here is a conclusion reached by the American Psychological Association:

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpconclusion.html

In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.

Of course there is the American Academy of Pediatrics.

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/pediatrics;109/2/341

A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.

Here is one even accepted by the British Medical Association.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/324/7351/1408.pdf

Children from lesbian mother families did not show a higher rate of psychological disorder or difficulties in peer relationships than their counterparts from heterosexual homes. With respect to gender development, there was no evidence of confusion about gender identity among these children, and no difference in sex role behaviour between children in lesbian and heterosexual families for either boys or girls

Here is a policy position from the American Medical Association.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/14754.html

Our AMA will support legislative and other efforts to allow the adoption of a child by the same-sex partner, or opposite sex non-married partner, who functions as a second parent or co-parent to that child.

It is fairly established that there is no significant difference. Oh. I’m confident that you can find other studies of questionable quality from questionable sources to refute mine.

 

[jillian]

At least he was semi-honest... he knows his stuff is opinions and you're relying on studies. It's a start.

But someone should really tell him that homophobic literature advanced by people who only want to use it to discriminate doesn't make reliable information.

 

[midcan5]

Counterpoint

When people fall in love, they do not marry to have children. They marry to share their lives with that person and to be with that person. Decisions prior to marriage should contain discussions about children or no children and how they want to live their lives with each other - their personal values.

Marriage is an established institution, but marriage's legal basis is not because marriages are perfect, it is because they are not and there must be an established, legal means of settling all issues. That is the basis for the desire of gays to marry. They deserve the same rights as others.

When marriages break up, custody of the kids is only one issue, the key issues involve finance and property. I know too many convoluted situations where children become pawns that are played to achieve some end. In real life the children are another thing to argue over and often it is the self centered adults who use them for less than noble purposes.

Kids can be raised in a multitude of situations so long as that situation is healthy and supportive of them. Is a marriage between a man and woman the best? If it meets the criteria above it is certainly one of the best means but not the only one.

No one is suggesting your slippery slope argument, marriage would still exist as you should notice the irony in your premise since gays want the right to marry and can't easily have children. So it must be that children are only part of the tradition and that strange love thing matters too.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Marriage is for the parents and the children if you decide to have kids.

If you don't want to marry someone of your gender, don't.

But keep your penis or vagina preferences out of other people's lifes.

No, allowing gay marriage will not in any fucking way destroy the institution of straight marriage.

Jeez, at least get a real argument instead of this bullshit crap.

How many more who use the attacks on gay to push their point (no pun intended) will eventually come out to be gay?

Homosexuality has existed since the inny and the outy were first invented. If you don't like it, fine. Just don't think you have the right to stop others.

Next comes which religion is best, which political party is best, which Hitler is best?

 

[Taomon]

As usual, the libs are trying to define the arguement based on false assumptions.

1. Marriage is primarily for the benefit of the adults.
2. Marriage is a right, not a privledge.
3. More than half of the married couples end up divorced. simply not true
4. Kids can be raised just as well by homosexual parents, as heterosexual. Truth is, we simply dont know. So, are we to use our kids as guina pigs to find out? I think not.

IF the institution of marriage is in such bad shape, why such the passion and insistence that same gender marriage be legalized?

If we, as a society, took kids and raised them on a farm, kind of like a communal thing, then most of us could care less who would get married. Marriage is an institution, which is a privledge, NOT A RIGHT, to promote healthier enviorments for kids to grow up in.

WHen marriages break up, what is the most hotly contested issue? Custody of the kids. Marriages without kids, celebs aside, usually go fairly uncontested, when compared to those with custody issues.

Peoples dreams, "To get married and start a family", not just "to get married"

So you want to send kids off to communal farms as an experiment? Maybe they will become serial killers and socio-paths and maybe not. Are you proposing that we experiment with humans?

We could look in on Rosie O'Donnel's kids or Melissa Etheridge's kids to see if they are doing alright.

The truth is there are loving homes where kids will become productive adults and troubled homes where kids will become criminal or psychotic or abusive. These homes are on both sides of the spectrum. It depends on the individuals and not their sexuality, their religious beliefs, or their class distinction.

 

[Ravi]

Peoples dreams, "To get married and start a family", not just "to get married"

I know a few couples that are married and don't have children by choice and a few others that aren't married and do have children by choice.

What always mystifies me--why does anyone care what choices other people make when they don't affect anyone but themselves?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Marriage was and always will be an economic arrangement.

Then you admit marriage has always been an integral part of the workings of our society, i.e., an institution.
Historically as well, our institution of marriage has never included gay marriage.
Gay marriage has never been an inherent "right".

 

[mattskramer]

Then you admit marriage has always been an integral part of the workings of our society, i.e., an institution.
Historically as well, our institution of marriage has never included gay marriage.
Gay marriage has never been an inherent "right".

And your point is.....

 

[Taomon]

Then you admit marriage has always been an integral part of the workings of our society, i.e., an institution.
Historically as well, our institution of marriage has never included gay marriage.
Gay marriage has never been an inherent "right".

Um, that was not what she was saying. So do you believe that heterosexuals have an inherent to get married? If so, then you admit that not allowing gay marriage is in fact bigotry as it is a separate set of rules for a specif classification of individuals. That would be the definition of discrimination.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

And your point is.....

The POINT is that gay marriage is not an inherent "right" as claimed by liberals who are trying to define the argument based on false assumptions…as stated in LuvRPGrl's original post (point #2) .

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Um, that was not what she was saying. So do you believe that heterosexuals have an inherent to get married? If so, then you admit that not allowing gay marriage is in fact bigotry as it is a separate set of rules for a specif classification of individuals. That would be the definition of discrimination.

Then you'll admit that not allowing the specific classification of individuals that don't like to wear clothes to walk the streets is also discrimination.

 

[Taomon]

The POINT is that gay marriage is not an inherent "right" as claimed by liberals who are trying to define the argument based on false assumptions…as stated in LuvRPGrl's original post (point #2) .

Then explain how heterosexual marriage is an inherent right.

Less than 40 years ago inter-racial marriages were illegal and many claimed that it would lead to the down fall of society (sound familiar?). Do you think mentally handicapped people should be allowed to marry and procreate?

Who is to say what the inherent rights actually are? The bigots who bark louder, the voices of reason and compassion or a happy medium?

 

[Taomon]

Then you'll admit that not allowing the specific classification of individuals that don't like to wear clothes to walk the streets is also discrimination.

Yes. There is nothing wrong with the human body, unless you are Kathy Bates.