The tide of marriage for same-sex couples has ebbed and flowed over the last decade with no end in sight. Because marriage sits squarely at the intersection of religion, law and society, the discussion around same-sex couples’ inclusion into the institution of marriage has been one of the most complex and hotly contested topics in America.
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
The ADF is not objecting to the fact that children so far in our limited research have done well with two parents. In a situation where there is a loving same-sex couple willing to adopt a child that otherwise would have no family, that choice is obvious.
The issue lies with Lambda Legal's refusal to acknowledge the ADF's point. Allowing same-sex marriage makes a statement to society, whether you agree or not, that a male parent and a female parent is no longer ideal. It deprives a child of the inherent right to have a mother and a father as an ideal family. Once a society removes that distinction, it can no longer say that a child should have a mother and father if possible instead of a same-sex set of parents.
At heart is the fact that this denies the scientifically documented (as if we needed it) differences between men and women. Removing that ideal of both sexes from a child's upbringing deprives them of exposure to both sexes and denies that that makes any difference.
- Benjamin Tuttle August 11, 2008 4:36PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Marriage, in and of itself, has nothing to do with children. Marriage is just the act of two consenting adults pledging to become their own family together. Whether or not they have children is strictly up to each individual marriage. Therefore, it can't be said that giving marriage rights to gay/lesbian couples deprives a child of the inherent right to a mother and father.
There are things that do help in that arena though: egg donors, sperm banks, deadly accidents, divorce.
- queenraven
September 8, 2008 1:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Marriage, in and of itself, was created for multiple reasons, but one of the main ones is because it provides the most stable environment to raise children in. Denying this goes against 4000 years or more of human wisdom and history, although it is vogue to deny it.
Allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry will inherently force society to accept that relationship as the same as a traditional marriage, and therefore force upon adoption agencies and sperm banks, etc, giving such relationships equal weight to traditional couples. It is this "sameness" that is unacceptable and irresponsible, because it forces on society the unscientific and wrong idea (though politically correct) that two moms or two dads is just as good as a mom and a dad.
Yes, in the real world, situations are different. I'd much rather a same sex couple care for a child than a single parent, or a single parent instead of no parent. Obviously, this is not an either/or. In the end, though, same-sex marriage being elevated to being the same as traditional marriage denies the differences between men and women and furthermore removes the ability for society to prefer a traditional couple as the best way to raise a child which it is.
I realize you probably will never agree, but I encourage you to at least acknowledge and attempt to understand the premises which I am laying out.
- Benjamin Tuttle September 24, 2008 6:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Do you have any research to back up the statement that the main reason for marriage was to provide a stable environment to raise children? I'm no expert, but I always thought the main reasons for marriage has been to pass on bloodlines and property rights. I don't think ancient man was as concerned with the proper "environment" to raise children so much as they were concerned about being able to lay claim to a son/daughter.
Sperm/Egg banks and adoption agencies are all private entities. They aren't forced into anything and they already cater to gay/lesbian couples. Some of these couples even manage to have heterosexual relationships long enough to produce children of their own. Allowing gay/lesbians to marry won't change the fact that they are already capable of having children one way or another.
I am a fan of a two-parent household. I especially like for the parents to be married. I, like you, think it's ideal. I understand your concern for children needing a father and a mother, because I completely agree. But I also think that children deserve, more than anything, a loving environment where they can prosper and be safe. If that comes in a gay/lesbian household so be it.
What exactly do you mean by "elevating same sex marriages denies the differences between men and women"? How so? It's a fact that men and women are different. I have no problem with that thought. In a same sex relationship, there isn't one partner "playing" the opposite sex. They embrace the fact that they are either two women or two men together. What do you envision will happen if homosexual couples are allowed to marry? What is the outcome for children, in your estimation? Are straight couples going to be denied the ability to adopt or have fertility treatments?
- queenraven September 24, 2008 7:36PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Since children for the last few thousand years have been a key aspect of carrying on the bloodlines, holding onto the property in the family, and providing much needed extra hands and income, its fairly logical. I'm rather surprised that you even challenge the assertion that children are a main reason for traditional marriage throughout history, I'd be glad to look up some research at a later date.
Adoption agencies, for example, and sperm/egg banks are private agencies, but that doesn't mean they are not regulated. Massachusetts is a famous example of a Catholic adoption agency that, because of the same-sex ruling by the judges by fiat over the will of the people there, cannot prefer a traditional married couple to a same-sex one. While I disagree with the agency for shutting down at that point, I am strongly opposed to the government forcing that upon a religion, which is happening and will continue to happen as the government forces same-sex marriage on society. If it were a laissez-faire, that'd be one thing, but the government recognizing it overrules religious beliefs (so much for separation of church and state) and forces everyone to abide by its rulings.
Same-sex marriage being exactly the same in status in society forces society to accept the falsity that men and women are the same. If two moms or dads is just as good (because, remember, we can no longer prefer a traditional couple to a same-sex one or refuse based on our beliefs to give eggs, etc, from a bank) as a mom and a dad for children, then having two dads MUST give children all of the same benefits of a mom and a dad. It doesn't, because men and women are different.
Thanks for the discussion.
- Benjamin Tuttle September 25, 2008 5:21AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I'm typing on my phone so I'll only adress one issue: Massachusetts and the catholic adoption issue.
The ability of the court to overturn the so called "will of the people" is necessary for the protection of the minority from the "tyranny of the majority." To even demean the courts for overruling laws "against the will of the people" is truly representative of a conservative 's desire to have pure democacy... Which is how communism AND fascism come into power (all you need to do is convince the majority that you are right and it won't matter what the minority says). Please don't insult our legal system just because you disagree with the outcome of a particular case.
As for why the catholic adoption agencies being forced to accept gay couples is because of the 14th ammendment(equal protection) to our constitution . The children in orphanages can't choose to transfer to "pro-gay" adoption agency and are therefore denied rights that are granted to other orphans. It's really very simple: it's about protecting children from illegal discrimination and giving the children equal access to adoptive parents !
- Rice klowN April 23, 2009 1:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The relevant text of the 14th amendment is:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I of course am not insulting our legal system, other than the fact you are completely ignoring the complex legal question surrounding the clash of the 1st amendment with your interpretation of the 14th. 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.
I, as many other individuals far more intelligent than I, are arguing that same-sex marriage is NOT a 14th amendment issue. They are NOT being denied any rights regarding marriage... they have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as everyone else. The issue is whether they WANT to marry someone of the opposite sex. The issue is ultimately about homosexuals' completely legitimate desire to feel accepted by society . Tolerance and love should be shown to all individuals, but that does not mean we make rash decisions that affect generations of society because of our supposed compassion for their situation (and arrogance that we know far better than every generation before us).
Given the Catholic Adoption agency, they have a Constitutional RIGHT to practice their religion. The government cannot ask them to prohibit the free expression of their beliefs, in this case their beliefs against same-sex marriage, EVEN IF it gives them money . If the government gives you a welfare check, can they prohibit your free speech ?
- Benjamin Tuttle June 11, 2009 5:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"...it can no longer say that a child should have a mother and father if possible instead of a same-sex set of parents."
Everyone believes that a child should have a mother and father, if possible, but we certainly don't take the children away from single mothers and give them to two-parent families. An ideal for an imaginary child has nothing to do with people's daily lives. A child with involved grandparents may do what any single mom's child does and turn to the grandparent for a role model of that gender, or bond closely with an uncle or aunt.
And since many lesbian couples have children from one partner's previous relationship, and they will be a couple regardless if they're married or not, you seem to be hinting that it would be best to take the child from the lesbian regardless of how custody was arranged--or the reasons for her having custody--and giving it to the ex-husband if he only gets a girlfriend.
- sharky September 24, 2008 8:12AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Yes, reality is much tougher than idealism. That is the precise reason I take my position on many issues.
I obviously would prefer a same-sex couple taking care of a child to a single parent or no parent. I want what is best for each child. The issue I have, though, is that elevating same-sex marriage to be the same as traditional marriage further denies the inherent differences between the sexes (the denial of which has already damaged society) and denies the ability of society to say that, wherever possible, a traditional married couple is preferred over all other options because of its proven superiority as a method of raising children. Denying that denies 4000 years+ of human experience and basic science. Acknowledging it accepts reality and places an ideal for a flawed society to strive towards.
- Benjamin Tuttle September 24, 2008 6:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
While females are paid 75 cents to every dollar a man earns, I can't agree with your idea that the sexes are similar enough.
I'm also not sure which inherent differences you're referring to, or which damage. Please understand, however, that I just a few days ago read a Victorian-era screed that decried young women of good families going to work as governesses. The author's reasoning was because their taking jobs unseated social order, caused breakdown in the class system, and caused woes to women that in turn drove them to feminism and caused men to disrespect the gentler sex.
And while science does agree there are some innate differences between men and women, this is a description, not a prescription.
- sharky September 24, 2008 6:26PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thanks for the discussion.
There are a host of inherent differences, many of which we are only able to specify now with advanced genetic and biological techniques. Some many blame some of them on society, such as the fact that there just aren't as many women in the hard sciences and engineering as men, even though women make up 55% of the college population. The differences in how men and women look at the world and evolutionarily have developed is massive, and denying those differences to a child when there is another option is wrong. While the real world sometimes makes a same-sex couple the best option, removing the ability of society to prefer that optimal partnership for raising children over alternatives is the travesty.
The framing of this argument is very important. One side claims it is one of the last big hurdles to achieving equal rights for homosexuals. I feel compassion for them and that is a very difficult decision. The other side, though, doesn't get their frame heard in the media. I am not against same-sex marriage, per se, but FOR traditional marriage and holding it up as the optimal situation in society. If society can no longer prefer traditional marriage over any other form, be it same-sex marriage or polygamy, etc, society can no longer prefer the optimal situation for raising children.
I appreciate the discussion.
John Haidt, a Social Psychology PHD, has a great lecture on TED about the moral differences between Left and Right. It may help to shed some light on the place that half of Americans come from. In the end, it is all a framing issue, and having both frames understood is extremely important.
http://www.ted.com/index.php /talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
- Benjamin Tuttle September 25, 2008 5:27AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I think you might be missing a logical factor of your argument. You've pointed out there's a 50/50 representation in college. I've taken biology, anatomy and physiology, and a major's worth of psychology classes, and done as well as the males. Science classes are a prerequisite, and women and men are passing them equally. So, since they show the same aptitude for the same subjects on the lower levels, something must be stepping in to select for a career in the sciences.
I read an account by a female scientist with two email accounts, one with her initials, one with her name. Colleagues assumed the account with the initials was male and kept that account in the loop with news and rumors; they ignored the one with her first name on it. It wasn't that they didn't like or know her; they didn't like or know the other account either. That's one example of how your career as a scientist is defined by passive discrimination in a publish-or-perish field where your colleagues are all-important. I'm sure how you can see a similar effect might chip in at the grad student level. So if I had a college-age daughter, I would tell her that she could succeed just like the men, but she could expect people telling her that she couldn't do it and trying to undercut her.
I also have to argue with your use of "traditional" marriage. I know I bring up the Victorians a lot, but go read "Oliver Twist." Maybe just the first few chapters. Adults starved and jailed and beat tiny children in the Victorian era and thought nothing of it; children weren't the purpose of marriage, as people claim now. Marriage was all about social and economic stability. Children were just a side result and you only needed one male to survive to be your heir and social bargaining chip. (It's in the Bible; children are not treasure, but a "quiver full" of arrows.) Today's view of children as all-important is a modern luxury, not a traditional function.
In my view, Western marriage evolved from "one man with as many wives as he could afford" to "one man with one wife whose property he owned" to "one man and woman who could keep her property" to "one man and one woman who could divorce him and still keep custody." Marriages also shifted from arranged to love matches. And homosexual marriage was around for the British and French in the early Middle Ages, the Picts, and the Romans until it was banned as a political move. Given the bigger picture, I see no reason not to bring it back today.
Oh, I'm loving this discussion too. You're the opposite of me, and usually such people don't have your calm, for some odd reason. :D
- sharky September 25, 2008 8:33AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I do enjoy the discussion's civility, which is why I will keep going at least one more.
The representation in college overall is actually more like 55/45 female/male in college, and will be even stronger soon. That representation does not translate to some hard sciences and engineering, yet, though. Yes, indeed, science classes are passing males and females equally, but the issue is INTEREST in subjects, not ability. Men and women can both be amazing at the sciences, Marie Curie comes immediately to mind, but again, the issue is the sex's interest. Men are wired differently in their heads than females as has been scientifically proven. The propensity for certain worldviews and abilities is greater in men for some things and greater for women for some things. I am sure there are still incidences of sexism in the workplace and academics, and that is sad. It is not the only reason for the massive disparity in the hard sciences though.
You do bring up the Victorians a lot, and sadly there was child abuse. There still is and probably always will be in our flawed world. We have to remember, though, that ancient Egyptians and even tribes way farther back were virtually the same as we are now in ABILITY, but their knowledge was less. Evolutionarily, we have not evolved much in abilities relatively because of the tiny scope of time we have had civilization. Considering that, despite the anecdotes from the Victorian Age, children were the purpose of marriage because they supported the family as the family grew older and supported parents unable to do hard labor anymore on the farms, etc. Truly today they are a luxury and a focus unseen in human history, but that does not remove the purpose of marriage as a means to produce children throughout history. There is a reason 4000+ years of humanity has chosen man/woman marriage as the optimum situation, despite its difficulties.
Of course there were specific instances you can point out that there were changes, but arguing the exception is the rule is silly. I realize that for many this is an extremely emotional issue (because the reasoning to give same-sex marriage rights is purely compassionate), so I commend your ability to be so clear. I appreciate that, because I can't seem to find many that can discuss it clearly. My only hope is to at least drive home the frame I have chosen to see the issue through so you understand why half of America (or more) opposes same-sex marriage. Its not for bigoted or hateful reasons (that's the easy way out instead of having these discussions). Its because they want traditional marriage to be held up as the model for the family because it is the optimal situation to raise a child. Once society chooses no longer to value specific life choices over others, we descend into chaos.
Thanks.
- Benjamin Tuttle September 25, 2008 1:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
So, beyond queenraven's obvious point that marriage has nothing to do with children, you honestly think that only ideal parents should be allowed to marry?
That almost makes ME want to use the slippery slope fallacy!
- Blue Linchpin December 18, 2008 8:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
"The fact is that there is no non-partisan social science research supporting the notion that all children need is two parents, regardless of sex. None. And there is no study anywhere comparing outcomes of children raised from birth by either two men or two women with children raised from birth by their own biological parents."
Argumentum ad ignorantiam at its finest.
Just because we currently have no evidence does not disprove the hypothesis.
- QuinceyQuick January 25, 2009 2:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Ahhhh, to "protect" the children from the horrible life of same sex "PARENTS" and families, I know thats not what was said, but rather inferred. Children ALWAYS do best when they have the influence of both male and female HEALTHY role models, when they feel safe and secure, valued and loved, when their family isn't being put up to (mostly) Christian flogging of going to hell, being called perverts, pediophiles and watching the tv ads that show other people they don't know trying to "protect" them from that person who reads to them at night. ALL of my same sex FEMALE friends who have children also have the healthy male role models in their childs life, to balance what they cannot be, lets get real. HOWEVER just because 2 women will never be anything other than, DOES NOT mean the child will suffer. Marriage, 50% divorce rate, so if a child is all happy and carefree, getting the BEST of mom and dad, oh wait how good could it have been if the child was/is living in an enviornment where mommy and daddy are beginning the steps towards divorce, the child has to live with it while it's happening, watch it, hear it and feel it. Face it it doesn't happen over night so how long has the child been exposed? And divorce...50% is an extremely high rate so how does that show mommy and daddy have something special called marriage? Lets see...and then there's the same sex parents who actually give birth or adopt. No "whoops" there, it's planned out, saved for and wanted. That child is sooo loved before they even arrive, and if indeed they adopted, who's child was it? Probably some lesbian out there trying to sabotage numbers of hetrosexual throw away babies that come from that precious gift of reproduction that's taken for granted and has no real value, just like the life that was created in a careless moment and given away, (but thank you for not aborting!).Children...and on this note, WHY are yours so much better than mine? WHY does my child HAVE to sit in PUBLIC school and be taught about your family and never see their family reflected in the teachings? WHY are you dictating to our children their lessons? Oh thats right...YOU have all the rights, yours are the only ones that count, what would happen if indeed YOUR child was teased, bullied and taunted every day and then committed suicide? Ohhhh, heads would role, but hey when its the child of a same sex couple or just a young person who discovers they are gay, it's ok? So children, I think same sex couples and families do a better job as they teach their children respect for ALL, compassion, empathy(we've been there) and to not judge or discriminate, most I know are faith based, just not fanatical based or the corporate organized religion type. Children are children, leave them out of this ADULT battle, you take care of yours and we'll take care of ours. We talk about the day at school, lessons learned and we discuss OUR family values in relation to, what do YOU do? The school is not where we turn to for our childrens life lessons and beliefs, your child won't poison mine with your values or beliefs, actually it's more info for my child to make INFORMED choices as they grow with guidance from us.
- sodaklt May 14, 2009 7:14PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"In contrast, there is a mountain of non-partisan social science research supporting the growing consensus among family scholars that children do best when raised by their own mother and father, and that the best odds for that happening is for the mother and father to be married."
So link that evidence. Put up or shut up. The way I see it, Lambda cited direct quotes and linked to more than one national organization that supports their position and provides evidence. And ADF just asserts those groups are all partisan without showing evidence of such... and says they have evidence that they do not site... i wonder who is BSing us?
- GermyJ June 2, 2009 3:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Single parent homes are not fair to children but ssm is even worse if you ask me. My children are growing up without a male influence, yet I take them to places where there is positive male influences ie church , ball games etc. The only thing worse than this scenerio would be to confuse them further with two mommies.
Gender Identity Crisis, is nothing to laugh at, it is a serious psychological disorder that some never fully recover from and ssm would cause more of this disorder, like children need more trauma.
I back this up with the following expert advice:
http://www.narth.com/docs/breiner2.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/drphil09.html
This is just sick and we as parents need to stop up to the plate here and put our feet down and say, LEAVE OUR CHILDREN ALONE!
QUOTE
It's time to root out the imposition of gendered behavior stereotypes from all aspects of our lives. Ending gender oppression means encouraging our children to experiment with alternative gender expressions...
- Nancy Nangeroni, a transsexual activist quoted in Transgender Warriors
It is fundamental that individuals have the right to define, and to redefine as their lives unfold, their own gender identity, without regard to chromosomal sex, genitalia, assigned birth sex, or initial gender role.
- From The International Bill of Gender Rights, approved by the International Conference on Transgender Law and Employment Policy, 1993
END QUOTE. ENTIRE ARTICLE AT http://www.narth.com/docs/york.html
As a single parent I recommend this Redeeming the Rainbow. book: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09b/Redeeming_rainbow/index.html
We can and will protect our children from this inflicted mental duress with Gds help.
- Hope7 July 22, 2009 12:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Marriage Means that Both Moms and Dads Matter
- From ADF
By Alliance Defense Fund - Defending Our First Liberty
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes -Moms and Dads Matter - But...
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.
- redondo July 13, 2008 11:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Reframing the Question
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?
- Benjamin Tuttle July 28, 2008 6:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Children have nothing to do with it
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?
- lostlo
August 19, 2008 1:55PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Where did that "Law" come from?
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.
- Benjamin Tuttle June 11, 2009 5:10PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
That's a good question (Part 1)
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)
- lostlo
June 16, 2009 2:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
That's a good question (Part 2)
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.
- lostlo
June 16, 2009 2:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A long post got lost - but this is my last post here
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."
- Benjamin Tuttle June 18, 2009 5:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Humans equals who, exactly?
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?
- quantummechanik
June 8, 2009 1:42AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Silliness
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.
- Benjamin Tuttle June 11, 2009 5:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
We are smarter
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.
- quantummechanik
June 11, 2009 5:24PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
And they'll also have a lot of ideas that are worse
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.
- Benjamin Tuttle June 12, 2009 9:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Always been with us
"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.
- MrBook
June 13, 2009 9:04AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
History is a bit flakey
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.
- Benjamin Tuttle June 13, 2009 12:09PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hell yes we're smarter
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.
- Blue Linchpin
June 11, 2009 7:28PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Everyone matters not just Moms and Dads
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)
- Concerned Citizen
September 3, 2008 3:43PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"Evidence"
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.
- bspatafora September 11, 2008 5:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
All You Need is Love
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.
- The Monk
February 16, 2009 1:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Fallacy
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.
- me58
February 16, 2009 8:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Correlation, not Causation
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.
- doughts
April 1, 2009 1:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.