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:
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
To Truly Care About Children, We Have To Care About Facts
- From Lambda Legal
By Lambda Legal - Making the Case for Equality
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The ADF's point was not addressed
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
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The ADF's point assumes every marriage = children
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
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Missing the point...
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
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How so?
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
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Last Reply - Thanks for Discussion
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
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ideals vs. reality:
"...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
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Take it the Next Step
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
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'm afraid I can't agree...
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
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Last Post - Thanks for the Discussion
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
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
...um, 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
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
One More
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
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ideal?
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
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.