Marriage Means that Both Moms and Dads Matter
Judges and politicians should never impose a system that purposely deprives children of a married mom and dad. De-defining marriage does this. Marriage de-definers insist, without supporting evidence, that all kids need is a “loving home” with two “parents.” But they continue to dodge the most obvious follow-up question in this debate: “Which parent is unimportant to a child: mom or dad?”
We already know – through all non-partisan research and plain common sense – that kids need a mom and a dad. Kids who grow up in homes without a married mom and dad are far more likely to drop out of school, to abuse drugs and alcohol, to commit suicide and suffer from depression, to engage in early promiscuous sex, to become pregnant, to contract an STD, to suffer poverty, and to be incarcerated.
We also know that every time the government tampers with marriage, kids suffer the most.? Consider how disastrous no-fault divorce has been for children.? It’s mind-boggling that advocates of de-defining marriage frequently cite the divorce epidemic in support of their position.? They ask, “Since marriage is already broken, why shouldn’t same-sex couples be able to call their relationships ‘marriage’?”? The answer is that you don’t fix a flat by slashing the other tires.?? Marriage has already been devastated by divorce, welfare, abortion, tax penalties, and other anti-family government failures.? Kids have come out the losers every time.? So where is the wisdom in, once again, treating children like lab rats in yet another massive social experiment when every other one has failed?
No one would support a policy that guarantees more kids would go without food, clothing, health care, and education. Growing up in a home with one’s own married mom and dad is the best guarantee that a child will not be deprived of those things and more. Having both a mom and a dad is infinitely more important to a child than any of those material items. So how then can anyone support a system that, by design, guarantees that more kids will be denied their right to grow up with a married mom and dad? The only answer is that a small group of self-interested adult activists have put their agenda above the real needs of real kids.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
I agree with the fact that children whom come from single parent or divorced families are at a higher risk for deviant behaviors (i.e. addiction , depression, poverty, etc). Much of the high divorce rates can be attributed to the fact that the sanctity of marriage has decreased in our country, by instituting things such as no-fault divorce. As a Christian and strong supporter of the sanctity of marriage, I am against legalizing same-sex marriage. However, I believe it is important to look at some of the arguments for the legalization of same-sex marriage. One such argument can be made about the parenting of same-sex couples. Much of the literature supports the fact that children of same-sex couples are in no way disadvantaged or at higher risk for deviant behaviors than children of a mom and dad. Therefore, when raising the argument about whether a child has a mom and dad or neither or two of the same, I believe does not strongly support your opposition. Yes, a child without one parent has a higher chance of participating in unhealthy behaviors. However, to equate this to a child with same-sex parents is not plausible, as researchers have proved with several studies on this particular issue. So I would actually side with the fact that, generally speaking, children of same-sex parents fair better than children of single parent homes. Thus, I again believe that this argument does not hold validity when debating the legalization of same-sex marriage.
Great points tqk. Quite methodical in fact. I agree with the fact that children who come from single parents or divorced families are at a highter risk for deviant behaviors. This has been evident in my brother's life. Additionally, the sanctity of marriage has decreased in our country. One might say this lays reason why marriage is seen as pase. Without the presence of a father and mother, children will develop differently, not knowing right from wrong. In a single parent household you learn from either your mother or father. There is an inbalance.
As a person who has observed same-sex couples, they treat their child the same as any other heterosexual couple. In fact the joy of seeing two men with an adopted child is heart-warming. This is dear to me being that I was adopted into an American family. From my knowledge these kids don't hold extreme health risks like children who come from a single or divorced upbringing. The essential argument is that, same-sex or not, having both parents creates for a better future.
You present an excellent argument. It does appear to be faulty logic to equate a phenomena occurring among children from single parent-homes to children from same-sex couples homes. Children of single parent-homes only have one parent to watch over them, provide for them, care of them, love them, etc. This is a lot of responsibility for one person to handle on his or her own. Like children of heterosexual couples, children of same-sex couples have two parents to manage all of these responsibilities.
Even though children of same-sex couples do not have an increase risk for deviate behaviors, there might be other ramifications of being raised by same-sex couples that researchers are not yet aware of.
I definitely agree with this argument whole heartedly. Even so, I think that there is some need for elaboration on the argument. Yes, the research does show that growing up in a home without both parents can be very damaging. I think that most people do not realize this. I also think that people typically tend to ignore this topic when debating the issue of same-sex marriage. It is not that either of the parents in the same-sex relationship do not love their child or that they are not good parents. It is simply a fact that a child statically does better if they grow up in a home with a married, biological father and mother. In early childhood there is a psycho-social need that needs to be met by both a male and female parent. This is necessary for proper a proper identity to form. If this process does not take place it can cause later psychological ramifications. Sure, this is not true for everyone. With the divorce and extramarital pregnancy rates today people rarely grow up in homes with a biological father and mother all the time. As a society these psychological ramifications are affecting views on what marriage should be. People who are no longer able to properly trust because of issues like divorce will have certain views of marriage. In the case of same-sex parents there needs to be both genders represented for the children. Research shows that. Legalizing same-sex marriage ignores the fact that both parents are important for a child.
I definitely agree with this argument whole heartedly. Even so, I think that there is some need for elaboration on the argument. Yes, the research does show that growing up in a home without both parents can be very damaging. I think that most people do not realize this. I also think that people typically tend to ignore this topic when debating the issue of same-sex marriage. It is not that either of the parents in the same-sex relationship do not love their child or that they are not good parents. It is simply a fact that a child statically does better if they grow up in a home with a married, biological father and mother. In early childhood there is a psycho-social need that needs to be met by both a male and female parent. This is necessary for proper a proper identity to form. If this process does not take place it can cause later psychological ramifications. Sure, this is not true for everyone. With the divorce and extramarital pregnancy rates today people rarely grow up in homes with a biological father and mother all the time. As a society these psychological ramifications are affecting views on what marriage should be. People who are no longer able to properly trust because of issues like divorce will have certain views of marriage. In the case of same-sex parents there needs to be both genders represented for the children. Research shows that. Legalizing same-sex marriage ignores the fact that both parents are important for a child.
This post has pointed out some good points. In looking at the discussion on same sex couples’ rights, it is important to look at who it will affect. Sure, the same sex couple can have the same benefits as a heterosexual couple does. But how does it affect the children of the same sex couple? A young girl needs a mother who will talk to her about menarche and what it means to be a woman. This is not something that two male parents can teach a young girl to become a woman. In the same way, a couple of two female parents cannot teach their son what it means to be a man. Both situations are lacking. Children should have every opportunity that they can. The situations described before do not give the children the kind of support that they need. Also it was said in another post that same-sex couples are more likely to break up compared to heterosexual couples. Break up is detrimental to a child’s development. Children are the victims in break ups. All of these aspects need to be looked at when discussing the rights of same sex marriage partners.
I whole-heartedly agree with this. Sometimes in our society, we are overwhelmed with our problems and trying to be accepted in society's standards or in this case, rebel from it. However, the most important thing to consider is that the children in a household should always come first. As cheesy as it may sound, children are our future. We cannot let them slip and fail because of what is happening in the home. I agree that children who do not live with a mom, dad or both do suffer educationally, psychologically and emotionally. We are know faced with a dilemma with children who are in dysfunctional homes of two moms or two dads. We need to realize as well that more and more gay couples are now adopting children for themselves. How is the mindset of those children going to grow as? A family is known and always taught as a mom and dad and their children. As an American society, we need to come to a common ground of what is best for the children. As adults and leaders of this great nation, we cannot always dwell in our misery and confusion of ourselves and each other. To create a more balanced and healthy way of living for the future leaders of this country, we need to teach them the true ways of a family and to show them through our actions. In that way, the statistics of child failings should go down and thus create a better future for each and everyone of us.
I agree that children do matter and generally they are the outcome of marriage. However, the issue at hand is not about parenting or family life but about marriage. Therefore, I do not think using this argument should necessarily be used when arguing for or against the legalization of same-sex marriage. Furthermore, many times assumptions are made about children whom have same-sex parents. Although it is not the ideal, does not necessarily mean that it is a completely negative or dysfunctional environment for children. I believe that generally children whom have same-sex parents are sometimes better off than children with a single parent. However, I would not probably go as far to say it is the same or better than families with a mom and a dad. Although, it is dependent on situations. All this to say, I think that focusing more on the sanctity and importance of marriage will also increase the importance of family.
I completely agree the children do matter! However, I don’t think that we can rule a homosexual marriage as the cause for the suffering of children. I am not sure there is enough evidence for that. It is also a little controversial to say “we need to come to a common ground of what is best for the children”. I understand what you are saying but I don’t see developing American children is as black and white. I don’t think anyone truly always knows what is “best” for the children let alone leaving up to the American government. We need to see that divorce rates and cohabitation also play a role in teaching American children about family. It is not just homosexuality, there are many things contributing to the break-up of the home which in turn cause problems for the children. It is detrimental for parents to be even stronger at teaching the values of family in today’s world. However, it doesn’t necessarily mean that same-sex partnership is the root cause of all problems for kids.
I agree with the fact that both a mom and a dad matter in raising children and that they each contribute different things that a child needs while growing up. And I do completely agree that same sex marriage should not be legal, but I am just thinking how the opposing side would view this argument. Your point about how this is all better for the children and is in the interest of the children is a valid point, but don't you think that adults who want to marry someone of the same sex are thinking that their choice is better for them as well. That they too want to live a life without suffering. You say that children are the ones who suffer the most from same sex marriages but without same sex marriages, people would also be suffering too. So I guess even though I agree with your argument, I am trying to figure out if you are just opposed to children suffering or are you opposed to suffering of people in general? I know that this topic is never going to be a "win-win" situation for everyone, but I do think it is important to consider and value aspects of the other side and how people would be affected. Maybe if this is done, then a solution can be found that will benefit the majority of people...instead of only being concerned with a selected group of people. Because I think that in order to help suffering children, I think that the parents (whether of the same sex or not) need to not be suffering as well. Maybe this could happen by first tackling better parenting rather than trying to take on the tough topic of same sex marriages. I think this issue needs to be gradually changed in order to solve anything and hopefully with that approach, the amount of people suffering will not be as high. I do believe there is hope for this issue, but I also think that we need to be more creative with how we are going to approach it, and that our focus needs to change from if same sex marriage is a good or bad thing to lets help those that are suffering, whether that is children or parents. I think this is a focus that more people can agree with and therefore, more people would be willing to help/change.
I definitely agree with what you had to say. The focus needs to be shifted from just same sex marriage to relieve people’s suffering. I think that there needs to be a better understanding of what marriage truly is. Divorce is something that causes a lot of people a lot of pain. If marriage was entered into with better preparation, understanding, and caution it could help prevent divorces. I also believe that a proper view of marriage might lead to better parenting . It would be better for everyone involved. I think that you are definitely right in looking at the bigger picture.
You make it seem like mothers dont take good care of their kids without a father. Did you know that alot of people choose to be the way they are for alot of different reasons. I would like you to tell people how it is that they dont know how to take care of our kids. Parents that take care of their kids and listen to their kids no matter what gender, are good parents. You have no right to say that just because some people chose there life style and chose to be with the same-sex are causing kids to be on streets and do drugs. That is something that has been happing and it has nothing to do with who someone marries. Love is love and no one in the intire world has a right tobut a label on what some feels. If you feel like there should be a change to the defintionof marriage then change it , but please dont make same-sex couples seem like parents who will treat their kids bad. I think that Same-sex partners have a right to get married and prove your insinuations to be false.
I hate to break it to you all but millions of kids don't have either a mom or dad and millions are in orphaneges. So of course it requires a mom and dad right? I'm sorry but you don't need both to raise a kid especially if one is unfit.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477
What a child needs is basically two parents. That's what we're use to correct? As long as there's two parents to take care of the child and provide shelter, the child will grow up on track. There's no written document or anything that states that which parent has to do what, so what does it matter if both the parents are of the same sex? Responsibilities will still be distributed and the child will be raised properly with the attention of both parents.
The fact that kids are better off with both a mom and a dad is questionable, simply because it is a correlation. Sure, kids are better off with two parents. They can appeal to a different parent if one is being unreasonable and there are more people to love them and look out for their well being. Single parents can't pay nearly as much attention to their children (I'm not saying that single parents don't still raise fine children) because they have to be the sole bread winner, and depending on which parent was killed, they might not have all of the college education or job skills necessary to find as good as a job. Kids who are grieving are also more likely to be angry, withdrawn, and rebel. This is not any fault of the parent. Kids who are raised by gay parents do just as well being raised by two parents of the same gender. I honestly don't think that a child needs to be raised by two parents of the opposite sex. Two gay men might be hard pressed to raise a daughter, but they would do their best, and as long as they were loving and patient, there's no reason that the daughter wouldn't become a valuable member of society . All in all, a child just needs parents. Married couples also have a lot easier of a time adopting , and I would find it hard to believe that a child would honestly be better off in the foster care system than in a loving home being raised by two parents, regardless of gender.
This article claims that children raised by two moms or two dads are more likely to engage in early sex, do drugs, drop out, etc. Can this be blamed on the fact that the child was raised without a mom AND a dad or on the fact that society is so intolerant that constant ostracizing has led the child down the wrong path? I don't think these types of statistics can be exclusively attributed to being raised by a gay couple. There are far too many other factors to be considered, therefore the basis of this argument is a fallacy. It is true that children raised by gay couples are more likely to be picked on but it is through society's own bigotry that this happens. The most important factor in raising children is giving love and care, regardless of whether there is a mom AND a dad.
The Alliance Defense Fund maintains that children without the “traditional” heterosexual parents will ultimately be a harmful influence on these children. Even though they proclaim all sorts of unbiased evidence exists to support their claim, they make no mention of it and, in this debate, it has become really important to make your “non-partisan research” known, and better yet, to quote it, so that your assertions are clear and verifiable. Lambda Legal, in their objection, quotes their own sources, and provides links to them, and these sources are of an authoritative nature. Now, to ADF’s credit, the ADF does paraphrase a source with a name in their response to the objection, but we still have no idea what part of the text they refer to in these sources or how we might even find these sources. The point is, unnamed sources might as well not exist, and unquoted sources, without any citation or means enabling verification, could very well misinterpret ideas or take them out of context.
For the sake of argument, let’s disregard the alleged science of anyone’s claims and use some good ‘ole “common sense” ADF implores. Now, psychologists might say that a child develops this way because a mother provides influence A and the father provides influence B, and perhaps we can quantify all such influences on child development, and then perhaps we could construct an ideal situation to raise children in. But who knows what all the influences and factors and combinations there are, let alone how any treatment or situation might work out? Is it better to spank or not to spank? Daycare or no daycare? Homeschool or no homeschool? Perhaps there is an answer to every one of these kinds of questions, but you don’t need me to tell you we have all the answers, and that, if we have sufficient answers, we’re ready to believe them. That’s why the government still gives parents a lot of free reign over their children. We step in for a few things, like “food, clothing, health care, and education,” and housing, and a caring family environment, because the majority of people think that’s what children need, at a minimum, to live. For children to thrive, that’s another question, my friend, one that works in same-sex and heterosexual parents, and ballet lessons, and Sesame Street, and Pre-K education—we will work hard and study these things, and perhaps one day the list of things child protection agencies and adoption organizations check up on will increase, but for now, in a reality not of absolutes but of heated controversy and, paradoxically, blurred distinctions, in child-rearing methodology, we have to give every loving parent a child to raise as best they can. And God knows that love is better than anything else we can give them.
Doctors do not, by virtue of being doctor, have the Midasian power to turn all they touch into fact. Your source provides not a scintilla of evidence to support his sweeping generalizations (One example: "The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable.")
The pontifical submission of such conjecture into the debate as "evidence" should call into question your status as "expert."
Your argument is one that warrants serious consideration in this debate. Scientific evidence has not, however, lent its weight to either side. It's contrary to the spirit of reasoned debate to pretend otherwise.
What is the difference between a gay married couple and a family where one parent got hit by a bus?
The nuclear family is a myth these days. A mom, father and 1-3 kids just does not happen anymore. As the saying goes it takes a village to raise a child and even if the child has 2 mommies or two daddies it should not matter because they will still have their opposing gender's roles displayed to them by teachers, other relatives, and even friends parents.
The thing is same-sex couples want LEGAL marriage and the rights, protections and obligations associated with it such as immigration rights which married couples have but the current established 'civil unions' for homosexuals do not. Is there something magical about having pieces that dont fit together that should deny them the same rights that heterosexual couples enjoy?
I'll take this time to quote the 1st Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
CONGRESS shall make no LAW respecting the ESTABLISHMENT of RELIGION. If you want to pawn Marriage off as a religious thing then you had best be prepared to deal with alternative religions that permit same sex couples. If it is not then it becomes a civil rights issue as congress has made laws (tax laws) that respect the establishment of religion (Judeo-Christian ideal of marriage). In either case the result would be the same if one followed the logic of arguing from the Original Position (look it up on Wikipedia)
Popular culture has labeled the issue, as has this website, a question of "should marriage for same-sex couples be legal?"
The question can be asked another way, which those for same-sex marriage like to avoid: "Should we change the definition of marriage?"
Marriage as it stands is one of the central cultural institutions in Western Civilization and 3000 years of wisdom as well as countless scientific studies show that a good mother and father are the best situation to raise a child in. Does this mean other situations can't be good? No. It just means other situations are better.
Same-sex marriage expands the definition of marriage, and in doing so, states that having two mommies is just as good as a mommy and a daddy. This denies the inherent differences between men and women and their value to child rearing.
If we can redefine marriage, saying we know better than 3000 years of human wisdom because our hearts tell us so, doesn't that mean we can have compassion for any change?
When you say 3000 years of human wisdom, who are you referring to? The Greeks? The Romans? The Jews?
"Western Civilization and 3000 years of wisdom" vs. "3000 years of human wisdom"
Are you saying that people who aren't a part of western civilization aren't wise, or aren't human?
3000+ years of human wisdom extends to every major civilization on Earth. Western Civilization was mentioned obviously because of its Christian roots for the last 2000 years, but that does not mean marriage between same-sex couples was the norm in any civilization on Earth through history.
Suddenly, in the 21st century, we have a generation of people who believe that they are smarter than every one of those generations before. None of those generations were right, and this new generation is FAR smarter and knows better than same-sex marriage is good for society . That arrogance is appalling, as great as we would feel about seeing same-sex couples feel validated.
3000 years of wisdom said that slavery was awesome, but we evolved and eventually abolished it.
3000 years of wisdom said it was fine to murder people that believed the earth revolved around the sun.
3000 years of wisdom said it was acceptable to murder whole cultures that believed in a different god.
I'm not sure if you're aware, Benjamin Tuttle, but the last 3000+ years of human history have been anything but wise. They were marked by extreme anti-intellectualism, oppression, slavery, lack of women's rights, persecution of science , and worse. Should we just do whatever's been done in history and assume that because it's been done the last 3000+ years, it's correct? Perhaps you'd be the first to slice your arm open and bleed it out, as that was one of the "wise" cures of our forefathers.
Sorry, I've never seen such a ridiculous argument.
Humans progress. We expand. We evolve. We become better. In a thousand years, they'll have ideas and systems and beliefs that are better then our current ones.
And they'll also have a lot of ideas that are worse. As I replied to "Blue Linchpin" below, there are a myriad of ideas in the last few millenia that have been worse than previous ideas. Communism, Fascism, Racism (which is far newer than we are taught) come to mind, but there are plenty of others that show that "human progress" is an illusion. Yes we make material progress, but that does not mean we always make moral progress.
"Communism, Fascism, Racism (which is far newer than we are taught)"
Communism, in a sense, has always existed... it just was never formally codified. As an economic / political system it can work on a small scale (single tribes or family group), though it falls apart when projected over a larger group.
Fascism is just authoritarianism repackaged. There were many brutal tyrants before Fascism existed (and I'm sure that there will be many more).
Racism has always been part of the human condition... It is the idea that ones own social group (such as a tribe or nation) is superior to all others.
"Yes we make material progress, but that does not mean we always make moral progress."
We have been making great strides. Slavery, as a global institution, has been all but eliminated... and it no longer exists as a legal entity in much of the world. The rights of women have been expanding... to the point where in nearly every country they have the right to own property and vote.
No offense, but your reading of history is a bit mistaken.
Communal societies may have existed, but that does not make them communist. The idea evolved overtime, and only after the concepts of States, corporations, and human rights could an idea like Communism be invented by Karl Marx.
Fascism is the same way. Fascism is necessarily authoritarian, though it is used interchangeably solely for that aspect in popular culture. Fascism also includes an economic component, one where the government exerts control over privately help businesses through partial ownership. This is not the simple complete ownership of industry in Communism, but has the result of government direction of industry in many cases. Again, this could not have evolved without the concepts of State, corporations, human rights, etc, which have only developed in the last few hundred years.
Racism is actually not the idea that a "tribal group or nation" is superior to others. Racism is distinctly about race. Europeans, for example, are usually of the same race but have been thinking that their tribe was superior to other European tribes for centuries. Only since the human ability to circumnavigate the globe and come into contact with distinct races of people has the concept of racism evolved to where it is today. The idea that one tribe is superior to another BECAUSE of the race could not have evolved when individuals never ran into individuals of separate races on a regular basis.
Again, you point out some of the moral progress we have made along with our material progress, but as I have shown, a lot of moral ideas have come along that are NOT progress. This Marxian idea of "Progress," which so many individuals exhibit an almost religious faith in, is dangerous for humanity. Thinking that every moral idea must be superior to the last, thinking that we inevitably will end up on Earth in a "better place," is a dangerous way to think. Not every idea, not every charismatic leader, leads us to a "better place." The consequences of these ideas in the long run cannot always be known, but a simple exercise in thinking beyond emotions and the immediate consequences can usually lead us to more sound understanding.
Progress isn't Marxian as much as it is Hegelian, and even that gets misrepresented a lot.
As for racism , let me see if I can paraphrase.
Racism only began when people of different races started coming into contact. This is a "new" idea, and a bad one. It was better when we were all separate.
Is that what you're saying?
Racism began when the idea that a race was superior to another originated. I don't know why you would infer "it was better when we were all separate" from that. I never said such an idiotic thing, and I am not sure why you would assume such.
I merely was explaining that racism has everything to do with race, and not much to do with "tribes" as you claim it did. Racism is not some ancient idea and is not ingrained into human nature, it is actually fairly new in the history of humanity.
My purpose in all of this is just to point out that assuming a new idea, same-sex marriage in this case, is good just because it is new and humanity is "progressing" is quite silly. I pointed out multiple examples of "progressive" ideas (if you take progressive to mean that which comes next) that weren't good... in fact were far worse than those ideas that came before. Just because we feel compassion for same-sex couples does not make same-sex marriage the right thing to do.
"I merely was explaining that racism has everything to do with race, and not much to do with "tribes" as you claim it did. Racism is not some ancient idea and is not ingrained into human nature, it is actually fairly new in the history of humanity."
-Benjamin Tuttle
Racism is the evolution of earlier ideas of tribal superiority... it is a natural extension of xenophobia. The underlying ideas have always been present.
I win.
darn you and your fedora to!
It types faster than me. Don't ask how.
Racism exists as an offshoot of xenophobia, which has existed pretty much since we developed into groups. Racism is essentially "race-based" xenophobia. I'll agree that this started when races began interacting, as they did during the Greek empire, but I'd disagree with you about the assertion that xenophobia isn't something that's part of human nature--If it was "invented", who invented it and why?
Same-Sex marriage is a good idea because equality is a good idea, because equal treatment for all groups is a good idea. Because decriminalizing homosexuality was a good idea. It's the right thing to do because they want it and there's no good, valid reason to not give it to them. It hurts no one in any truly tangible way.
Marriage from a legal standpoint is simply a contract between two people that gives certain legal rights and responsibilities and affects property ownership.
If you're talking about the sacrament of marriage, i.e. religious ceremony, you can exclude homosexuals all you want. The law is not the same as religion, however. This issue is about the legality of "marriage" as recognized by the state. Legal marriage does not mandate, require, or even encourage children. Society encourages children. If you have a problem with children who aren't raised by a mother and father, you need to try to bring about societal and attitude changes, not trying to suppress the civil rights of a group you dislike.
If you don't think homosexuals should be allowed to raise children, that's an adoption issue. All you're doing by fighting gay marriage is ensuring that children of homosexual couples will have unmarried parents. Is that somehow better?
The sacrament of marriage is the exact reason why the laws concerning marriage were created. We wouldn't have "marriage" as a concept if it weren't for religion . Society, though, doesn't in fact encourage children . If you look at Western Europe, their birth rates are well below replacement and dangerously close to societal collapse despite their natalist government policies. The United States is leaning towards those dismal numbers itself.
I am first and foremost about children in my opposition to same-sex marriage . We are already seeing vast changes in culture in the states that have adopted same-sex marriage. These states are shutting down Catholic adoption agencies by forcing the law (same-sex marriage is legal ) to take precedent over their religion in their adoption agencies. Same-sex marriage starts to trample religious freedom even if it is "only" a legal issue.
The other major cultural shift is in that a school can no longer (and religious institutions lest they violate "hate laws" or discriminate) hold up traditional opposite-sex marriage as the normal, optimal solution to a child. Confusing children at an early age as to whether they should marry a boy or a girl is not good for children still in the development stages. Claiming that it doesn't matter whether a child marries a boy or a girl is equivalent to society saying that girls are the SAME as boys. This is patently false... men and women are EQUAL, but NOT the same.
I agree that societal and attitude changes are required about marriage. Our out-of-wedlock birthrate in the US is staggering, and the statistics about children raised in single parent households are appalling. That being said, legalizing, and therefore societal endorsing, same-sex marriage says that our society doesn't care that a child has a mother and father. We have taken that option off the table. Adoption agencies are not allowed to discriminate and favor a married opposite-sex couple over a same-sex one anymore, which deprives children of a mother and father. A same-sex couple is obviously a wonderful option for a child that is in foster care or in dire straights, but society needs to be able to favor an opposite-sex couple over a same-sex one in adoption. A child has a right to a mother and father when it is possible.
Additionally, the whole notion that it is "discrimination" is ridiculous, no offense. Same-sex marriage is a NEW right. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. I will inevitably hear the rebuttal of how inter-racial marriages were illegal, and that is a non sequitur. There is no difference between the races, but there are staggering differences between men and women. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, but some individuals are predisposed towards someone of their sex, be it by genetics, nurture, or nature or some combination.
By redefining marriage, we have not only thrown the notion that men and women are different out the window, we have necessarily changed that definition to allow anyone to marry anyone if it is consensual. There is no reason, therefore, that three people cannot marry into a polygamous relationship if it is about consensual decisions between any persons. There is a reason that thousands of years of human history have evolved to this point; that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that reason is being torn down.
I have the utmost compassion for gays and their situation, but that does not mean I forsake my standards and ignore the consequences of such a change because of my emotional "compassion."
Thanks for the discussion.
5. You were right to say "no offense," because as a member of a heterosexual, interracial couple I am tempted to take offense. The right for me to marry my boyfriend was also once a NEW right. Your claim that there are differences in gender but not race lead me to think you are talking about genetics. If I'm understanding your argument correctly, you seem to be saying that it's fine to treat groups differently under the law if their DNA is different. Am I understanding your argument correctly? That also troubles me. I do not like the idea of establishing legal precedent that equal protection under the law can be discarded based on genetics. Surely you can see how that might be abused.
6. I do not understand how allowing homosexual couples to marry implies that men and women are identical. I also do not understand your next sentence. It is false that if gay marriage were legal, that would mean that polygamy would be legal. The reason that polygamy would not be permitted if gay marriage were legal is that polygamy is illegal under separate laws. I believe you are trying to say that you think that if gay marriage becomes legal, that automatically means that polygamy will become legal. This is a straw man fallacy, because you have presented no evidence that this is true. I do not believe any such evidence exists, unless you have the ability to see the future, in which case surely you have something better to do with your time than argue with me :) Finally, you say "there is a reason" that gay marriage is illegal, but you do not specify what it is. If there is a reason, name it. Your assertion that the current situation is automatically best because "thousands of years of human history have evolved to this point" is laughable. I'm sorry, but it is. In the 1940s, thousands of years of human history had evolved to the Holocaust. Does that mean the Holocaust was good? The true history of humanity is a tale of ups and downs, of progress and regress. Humanity has made some serious bad calls, but they seemed like good ideas to the people of the time. If you truly believe that the status quo is good and the current change is bad, you need a better argument than "this is good because it's how things are." (if you want to be taken seriously, anyway)
7. What is the "situation" of the gays to which you refer? It's also interesting to me that you put the word compassion in quotes, as I see no compassion for gays (and their mysterious "situation") on display in your argument. However, I am open-minded and realize that you are probably telling the truth and are not just some bigot, so if you'd like to provide examples of times when you have demonstrated compassion for homosexuals, I would be delighted to hear that evidence as well.
No problem, I always make time for courteous and rational discussion.
I actually replied with a long post, answering point by point, but it was lost somehow. It made me rethink the issue, so I'll provide a few answers to your questions and then reframe the issue.
2) http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions / - Sadly, the Catholic agency had to choose between their beliefs and law . The State, which mandated that same-sex marriages were equal to traditional marriages, made it impossible to differentiate legally.
4) As you can see, codifying same-sex marriage as equal in law DOES force your beliefs on others. Either the Catholic adoption agency agrees with same-sex marriage, or it must close down. If that is not coercion, I don't know what is.
Now for a little reframing.
My hope is that you would attempt to see the issue from the opposite side, although I am a little discouraged that you think it is my responsibility to prove "when I have demonstrated compassion for homosexuals." My hope is that, as an informed women who cares about the issue enough to debate someone on a site like this, you would research these issues. I encourage you to read up on many of the religious issues surrounding same-sex marriage in Europe and the US, as well as read some intellectual discussions from the pro-traditional marriage side. I certainly am not the most eloquent spokesman, but one must first disregard the notion that opponents are either bigots or not progressive in their thinking (and therefor dumb). You certainly don't get any intellectual debate about the issue in the New York Times or on CNN.
The problem with the whole issue is that gays think the marriage issue is all about gays. It has barely anything to do with gays frankly, and every attempt to change the definition of traditional marriage in American society is met with the same attempt to stop it. The issue is that marriage, as defined as the union between one man and one woman, should be kept that way for the good of society. Utah wasn't allowed into the Union until it changed its incorrect definition of marriage to that of the United States.
Do you think that marriage between one man and one woman, especially in regards to the raising of children , is the ideal for society? Does it make no difference if a child has two mothers instead of a mother and a father?
Ignoring the difference between the sexes is required to disregard this ideal. Thinking that a male and a female parent in a loving married relationship do not bring something different to the table than two loving gay parents is just untrue.
The point is that traditional-marriage advocates are arguing FOR the ideal of opposite-sex marriage for the betterment of society, and not against any group in particular.
It most certainly is not a discrimination issue for gays, even though it is constantly touted as one. There is no difference between a caucasian man and an asian man other than cosmetic difference. There are huge differences between men and women. This is why we have girl scouts and boy scouts, but not white scouts and asian scouts. We should as a society be able to differentiate in our laws regarding different things, and gays currently have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as everyone else. Gays just don't choose to because of their genetic/nature/nurture/biological differences. Allowing equal rights in visitation, inheritance, etc should obviously be law, and currently it can be law in many cases through contracts between individuals, but where not it should be made so.
In order to make it a discrimination issue, therefor, we would have to change the definition of marriage from "the union of one man and one woman" to "the union between individuals who love each other." In this case, there is no rational argument one could make against any grouping of consensual, loving humans joining together in a "marriage," including polygamy and intra-family marriage, which is why that definition is not true.
I hope this helps, and I appreciate the discussion. My main goal merely is to at least get others to think a few steps beyond the initial emotionality of the issue. What's good for individuals on an micro scale is not necessarily good for society. Thinking past "stage 1," though most people do not, is imperative to understanding any issue. Thinking about the consequences wrought on children as they are taught in school that there is no ideal for marriage or relationships, about the consequences on men and women as marriage becomes any arrangement one pleases, and denying the differences between the value of men and women in child-rearing can have vast consequences that are unknowable. Making such a momentous change in society should be thought out, and at least voted on behind a banner a little more well-thought out than "Prop H8" or "Equal Rights."
Where did the law come from? I don't know, and I appreciate your thoughtful explanation, but you have made a large number of assumptions in your argument. Unfortunately, my profound skepticism and love for the truth prevents me from accepting your assumptions outright without any evidence or explanation of why you think it's safe to make them. So if you truly want to convince me, and I honestly am open-minded, you will need to give me some more information about these assumptions. For clarity's sake, I will go through each of your paragraphs in order and ask questions where I need more clarification.
1. First of all, I was not aware that the concept of marriage would not exist without religion . Can you please give me some more information about which religion invented the concept of marriage, or perhaps point me in the direction of where you learned this? I have not learned this in my studies, which admittedly have not been exhaustive. As for birth rates, I am familiar about the low birth rates in some countries, but I do not see what that has to do with gay marriage. If I had to guess, I would think that you mean to say that countries that are less religious have fewer children , but I do not see how that relates to the legality of gay marriage. Remember, this debate is about whether gay marriage should be legal , not about religious views on gay marriage. If you want to argue that laws should be based on religion you are welcome to do so, but I'm not a huge fan of theocracy myself. I am a huge fan of the US Constitution, personally.
2. I am not familiar with the shocking violation of religious freedom that you mention here, and would like to read more about it. Could you provide a little more detail so I can do some research? Names of the agencies involved, name of a court case, which state/time period... any of these things would help me to find more detail about the cases involved.
3. "Confusing children at an early age as to whether they should marry a boy or a girl is not good for children still in the development stages." In this statement you have assumed two things a) if it is legal for homosexuals to marry, children will be confused about who they want to marry, and b) such confusion is harmful to the child in a way that you did not specify. This may be correct, but again I have not seen the evidence, could you tell me where I could read more about these claims? "Claiming that it doesn't matter whether a child marries a boy or a girl is equivalent to society saying that girls are the SAME as boys." Here, you have inadvertantly committed a logical fallacy. The two claims are not equivalent. Here, I'll show you: "It doesn't matter if a business owner is a woman or a man. Therefore, women and men are the same." The two are not equivalent. If you think they are, do you mean to suggest that women should not be allowed to own small businesses? Of course not, you made no such claim because the scientific that men and women are not biologically identical is not the same thing as a society standard about what men and women should or should not be allowed to do.
4. I'm sorry, I did not say that changes in societal attitudes are required. I do not think that I have the right to dictate what others are allowed to believe. I do have personal standards which differ from the most common societal views, but I do not really feel compelled to demand that others change their views to be like me. As much as I'd love for us to agree about something :) Your notion that something being legal means that society "endorses" it confuses me, if you care to clarify this position I'd love to hear it. And the rest of this paragraph appears to be your complaints about adoption law . As I mentioned in my original post, if you think the adoption laws should be changed, then you're in the wrong place. This debate is about whether homosexual couples should be allowed to get married, not about whether they should be allowed to adopt children. If you feel that's a problem, why aren't you against gay adoption? Why gay marriage? And finally, it's great that you care about the rights of children, but all children do have a mother and father, as far as I know... maybe I missed human cloning coming into vogue? I think you mean to say that you think all children have the right to be raised the way that you think is most appropriate. Do you also feel that we should enact laws dictating how parents are allowed to raise children? It's fine with me if you do, I'm just trying to understand your argument.
(this was too long, so there will be a part 2)
Marriage does NOT mean that both Moms and Dads matter. Of course it is true that Moms and Dads matter, but that has nothing to do with the topic under discussion which is ‘Should Marriage for Same Sex Couples be Legal? Nowhere in the dictionary within the various definitions of marriage, is there mention of Moms and Dads. There are marriages where there are no children. Should there then be legalization of marriage for same sex couples as long as both parties have agreed not to have children?
There are single-parent families which raise exceptional children. Just look at President Bill Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. They turned out quite well. I have no doubt that there are single Dads who also raise great children. There are also two-parent families whose children grow up to be terrible citizens. Yes, there may be valid reasons for someone being against legalization of marriage for same-sex couples, but I do not feel that your premise is validated by your example.