NationStates Jolt Archive

Legislating marriage and families goes hand in hand now, it can and should stay that way, pilling on gay-community issues in the same basket is pointless and dangerous. Gay-community issues requires it's own legislation, separate and different.

Some examples of how legislation address marriage itself, that will not make any sense if marriage no longer means family:
Florida:
http://www.flsenate.gov/data/session/2003/Senate/bills/billtext/pdf/s0480er.pdf

An act relating to children and families;
3 providing legislative findings and intent;
4 creating the Commission on Marriage and Family
5 Support Initiatives within the Department of
6 Children and Family Services;

Minnesota:
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S1841.1&session=ls83

The commissioner shall
1.14 develop and implement a Minnesota Healthy Marriage and
1.15 Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, as provided for in this
1.16 section. The commissioner may administer the initiative with
1.17 federal grants, state appropriations, and in-kind services
1.18 received for this purpose.

New Hampshire:
http://gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2002/HB1299.html
AN ACT establishing a committee to study the creation of a marriage education and enhancement program.
SPONSORS: Rep. Hopper, Hills 5; Rep. J. Hutchinson, Merr 15; Rep. Souza, Hills 40; Rep. Albert, Straf 17; Sen. Cohen, Dist 24
COMMITTEE: Children and Family Law

Colorado:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/2003a/inetcbill.nsf/fsbillcont/72B1FFDE6B6382E487256CD3005832EF?Open&file=HJR1064_enr.pdf
WHEREAS, Marriage, family, and relationship skills education can help
couples learn conflict resolution skills, thereby reducing domestic violence
against each other and their children; and
WHEREAS, Marriage, family, and relationship skills education can
facilitate the creation of clear guidelines for keeping children out of the
middle of parents' disputes and can enhance focus on the needs of the
children; and…

1. If, as you claim the above legislation equates Marriage and Family, then, pray tell, does so much of it expressly state "Marriage" and "Family" separately? Hmm?

2. I'd love to see you explain how any of these four examples of legislation would be rendered nonsensical by the existence of gay marriage.


I'm out of words, unless a different angle of discussion evolves here, I've said everything I can, I'm just repeating stuff from earlier in the thread. If some of you still aren't convinced that children are best raised by their own parents who are commited to each other and their children, then we will just have to disagree and settle the dispute in the voting booths.

1. No one arguing against you has argued against the proposition that children are best raised by their own parents who are committed to each other and their children. You can repeat that strawman as often as you like. Feel free to set him on fire. Doesn't have a damn thing to do with this debate.

2. Except ... that if a child's parents are homosexuals, you are hell-bent on denying that the child is best raised by his/her own parents who are committed to each other and the child. You wish to deny that family their rights and to put obstacles in the way of those parents and their child.

3. Repeating myths, half-truths, absurdities, and slippery slope arguments that have already been debunked in this thread doesn't make them any more valid than when you vomitted them out the first time.

4. You just don't get the idea of constitutional rights at all, do you?

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

5. Freedom and equality are not inimical to families and children. Bigotry, discrimination, and tyranny are threats to family and children. American has thrived because of, not inspite of, its ideals. As we make progress towards true equal protection under the law and towards recognizing every citizens fundamental rights, we make America better, not worse. We make families stronger, not weaker. We make life better for children -- of all races, colors, creeds, religions, ancestries, sexual orientations, national origins, and genders.

No. My main reason is to oppose ANYTHING that is destabilizing the institution of marriage for raising families. I'm not just advocating against diluting marriage with SSM's, but I'm against many other things in society that have changed America from having 9% of it's children living in single parent homes in 1960 to 30% now, and 68% of children in certain areas (namely large poor urban cities) being raised in single parent or no parent homes.

We HAVE to defend marriage, re-institute it as a methodology of raising our expectations of parents. Children are suffering, our society is suffering, it is getting worse... diluting the purpose of marriage entirely, by allowing SSM (for example) will only make the entire institution unsalvageable and meaningless.

My warning is that all of America will look like the urban areas do now. It is growing worse, as adults who have children feel less and less inclined to actually bother raising them. It's a shame on us all.

i dont disagree with your goal or your feeling that its bad for so many children to be born to single mothers. yes we should be encouraging women to wait until they are married before having children. we should encourage people with children to learn the best techniques for raising kids. we should encourage couples with children to try harder to stay together when there are no addiction/abuse issues involved.

what is so wrong with wanting the same thing for families with same sex parents? dont they deserve the same support? does it really matter if the majority of married gay men never have children? why isnt it more important to support those families that already exist and those that will be created whether you like it or not? dont children with 2 mothers NEED that extra support more than children with a mother and a father?

i really dont see your problem or how keeping gay marriage illegal will do anything to support children or to degrade the institution of marriage. as lonely boys said, we straight people are doing a great job of it all by ourselves, gay marriages wont make it any worse.

i dont disagree with your goal or your feeling that its bad for so many children to be born to single mothers. yes we should be encouraging women to wait until they are married before having children. we should encourage people with children to learn the best techniques for raising kids. we should encourage couples with children to try harder to stay together when there are no addiction/abuse issues involved.

what is so wrong with wanting the same thing for families with same sex parents? dont they deserve the same support? does it really matter if the majority of married gay men never have children? why isnt it more important to support those families that already exist and those that will be created whether you like it or not? dont children with 2 mothers NEED that extra support more than children with a mother and a father?

i really dont see your problem or how keeping gay marriage illegal will do anything to support children or to degrade the institution of marriage. as lonely boys said, we straight people are doing a great job of it all by ourselves, gay marriages wont make it any worse.

He won't accept that reasoning because it involves doing something positive.

4. You just don't get the idea of constitutional rights at all, do you?

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

The fundamental “right to marry” is a right that rests with individuals, not with couples.


5. Freedom and equality are not inimical to families and children. Bigotry, discrimination, and tyranny are threats to family and children. American has thrived because of, not inspite of, its ideals. As we make progress towards true equal protection under the law and towards recognizing every citizens fundamental rights, we make America better, not worse. We make families stronger, not weaker. We make life better for children -- of all races, colors, creeds, religions, ancestries, sexual orientations, national origins, and genders.

Nice speech, too bad it's not true. The benefits of marriage do not need to be distributed equally to all (if they were, single people would have as much reason to consider them “discriminatory” as same-sex couples).

Society through it's government grants benefits to marriage because marriage has benefits for society ~ Marriage is not a creation of the law. Marriage is a fundamental human institution that predates the law and the Constitution. At its heart, it is an anthropological and sociological reality, not a legal one. Laws relating to marriage merely recognize and regulate an institution that already exists.

i really dont see your problem or how keeping gay marriage illegal will do anything to support children or to degrade the institution of marriage. as lonely boys said, we straight people are doing a great job of it all by ourselves, gay marriages wont make it any worse.

Protecting marriage is going to take more than just stopping SSM’s

~No-fault divorce has undermined the concept that marriage is a life-long commitment. As a result, there's been an epidemic of broken homes and broken families as the census of child homes has shown

~The sexual revolution has undermined the concept that sexual relations should be confined to marriage at all (either waiting for marriage, or being monogamous during marriage).

~The concept that childbearing should be confined to marriage has been undermined. As a result, there's been an epidemic of out-of-wedlock births, single parenthood, and fatherless children.

~The pornography revolution, particularly with the advent of the Internet, has undermined the concept that a man's sexual desires should be directed toward his wife. To the point that the absurd notion that The very idea that a male CAN be monogamous is challenged in the public forum. :rolleyes:

All of that needs to be addressed and dealt with reworked, the social experiment is failing.

But instead of dealing with our situations, and pretending that it’s not getting worse, we now have this social and political pressure to redefine what constitutes marriage itself.

What reason does anyone have for suggesting that the end result of this extremism in social engineering experimentation, unprecedented in human history, will be any less harmful than the consequences of the changes above have already done? None, none whatsoever. It is wrong to try because our own children are our guinea pigs.

The fundamental “right to marry” is a right that rests with individuals, not with couples.

Nice speech, too bad it's not true. The benefits of marriage do not need to be distributed equally to all (if they were, single people would have as much reason to consider them “discriminatory” as same-sex couples).

Society through it's government grants benefits to marriage because marriage has benefits for society ~ Marriage is not a creation of the law. Marriage is a fundamental human institution that predates the law and the Constitution. At its heart, it is an anthropological and sociological reality, not a legal one. Laws relating to marriage merely recognize and regulate an institution that already exists.

I see.

We're back to the "Virginia can make interracial marriage a crime" rationale.

You really should read Loving v. Virginia and the related history.

Then again, if you really are in your 80's you should have lived through that history.

Did you fight for or against the ban on interracial marriage? If you claim the latter, why?

Protecting marriage is going to take more than just stopping SSM’s

~No-fault divorce has undermined the concept that marriage is a life-long commitment. As a result, there's been an epidemic of broken homes and broken families, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

~The sexual revolution has undermined the concept that sexual relations should be confined to marriage at all (either waiting for marriage, or being monogamous during marriage).

~The concept that childbearing should be confined to marriage has been undermined. As a result, there's been an epidemic of out-of-wedlock births, single parenthood, and fatherless children, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

~The pornography revolution, particularly with the advent of the Internet, has undermined the concept that a man's sexual desires should be directed toward his wife. To the point that the absurd notion that The very idea that a male CAN be monogamous is challenged in the public forum. :rolleyes:

All of that needs to be addressed and dealt with reworked, the social experiment is failing.

But instead of dealing with our situations, and pretending that it’s not getting worse, we now have this social and political pressure to redefine what constitutes marriage itself.

What reason does anyone have for suggesting that the end result of this extremism in social engineering experimentation, unprecedented in human history, will be any less harmful than the consequences of the changes above have already done? None, none whatsoever. It is wrong to try because our own children are our guinea pigs.

so lets get off this non productive focus on SSM. i think we can perhaps agree that it will not solve the larger problems of society and leave it at that for now

what do you think should really be done to "defend the family"?

no fault divorce may be a disaster but what should replace it and what should be the grounds for divorce and how can they be enforced? (it used to be that a couple would decide between them who would "admit" to infidelity in order to get a divorce)

I see.

We're back to the "Virginia can make interracial marriage a crime" rationale.

You really should read Loving v. Virginia and the related history.

Then again, if you really are in your 80's you should have lived through that history.

Did you fight for or against the ban on interracial marriage? If you claim the latter, why?

Your insistence to use that flawed analogy is telling, you have nothing else do you? The idea that the two topics are related at all is unsound.

Bringing together the genders by uniting men and women is a part of the basic principle of marriage, common to all human civilizations.

Laws against interracial marriage, on the other hand, served only the purpose of preserving a social system of racial segregation. This was both an unworthy goal and one utterly irrelevant to the fundamental nature of marriage. Allowing one ethnic woman to marry a different ethnic man does not change the definition of marriage, which requires one man and one woman and the ability of procreation.

Allowing SSM would change that fundamental definition. Banning the "marriage" of same-sex couples is therefore essential to preserve the very definition of marriage itself.

what do you think should really be done to "defend the family"?

no fault divorce may be a disaster but what should replace it and what should be the grounds for divorce and how can they be enforced? (it used to be that a couple would decide between them who would "admit" to infidelity in order to get a divorce)

There is and has a been a movement (growing I think) for stronger marriage vows and harder to get divorces, making essentially 2 legal definitions for marriage. Covenant Marriage would allow the courts to force the participants to go to counseling OR wait a much longer durations of 'separation' time before granting a divorce. I think this is a good start. The outcome is not yet known, but the heart of the movement seems to be right.

Challenging couples to get rid of the idea "if it doesn't work out, I can always get a divorce" even on their very wedding days. And with that change alone, the 'party' atmosphere that is a wedding day is toned down by the right realization by the man and woman that what they are about to do is lasting and long term and not to be taken lightly.

http://www.walkerpub.com/covenant_marriage.html

DECLARATION OF INTENT
In order to enter into a Covenant Marriage, the couple must sign a recitation that provides:

* A marriage is an agreement to live together as husband and wife forever;
* The parties have chosen each other carefully and disclosed to each other "everything
which could adversely affect" the decision to marry;
* The parties have received premarital counseling;
* A commitment that if the parties experience marital difficulties they commit to take
all reasonable efforts to preserve their marriage, including marital counseling; and
* The couple must also obtain premarital counseling from a priest, minister, rabbi or
similar clergyperson of any religious sect or a marriage counselor.

After discussing the meaning of a Covenant Marriage with a counselor, the couple must also sign, together with an attestation by the counselor, a notarized affidavit to the effect that the counselor has discussed with them:

* The seriousness of a Covenant Marriage;

You insistence of that flawed analogy is telling, you have nothing else do you? The idea that the two topics are related at all is unsound.

Bringing together the genders by uniting men and women is a part of the basic principle of marriage, common to all human civilizations.

Laws against interracial marriage, on the other hand, served only the purpose of preserving a social system of racial segregation. This was both an unworthy goal and one utterly irrelevant to the fundamental nature of marriage. Allowing one ethnic woman to marry a different ethnic man does not change the definition of marriage, which requires one man and one woman and the ability of procreation.

Allowing SSM would change that fundamental definition. Banning the "marriage" of same-sex couples is therefore essential to preserve the very definition of marriage itself.

So, you refuse to answer the question. Hmmm?

That you fail to see the overlap between your rhetoric and those banned interracial marriage is not a failing on my part.

(And I love how the person who keeps repeating the same rebutted statements accuses me of repeating a flawed argument. :p )

so would you want all marriage to be covenant marriage? what grounds would you "allow" for divorce? and how would you prevent people from just seperating anytime they wanted then just waiting out the time until they could file for divorce?

i dont think it can come from the government. i think it has to be a general social movement. laws can be gotten around. we need to change societal attitudes

...begins eyeing Greenlanders' forearm hungrily...

This is kinda like the Donner party, isn't it...

so would you want all marriage to be covenant marriage? what grounds would you "allow" for divorce? and how would you prevent people from just seperating anytime they wanted then just waiting out the time until they could file for divorce?

i dont think it can come from the government. i think it has to be a general social movement. laws can be gotten around. we need to change societal attitudes

I want public perception to be changed. I want the reasons for the institution of marriage to be taught in schools, to over-ride the influence of Hollywood’s version of marriage. The Disney tale of happily-ever-after is an unrealistic objective and young women in America can be much better prepared for the realities of living and marriage before they graduate high-schools.

I want adults to recognize the benefits of marriage for raising children, I want people to get serious about having children before they actually do it.



(off to supper ~ back later)

Paying taxes equally is a part of civil rights.

Percentages change...

Great, so you understand that taxes are applied equally. The percentages don't change by sex, age, sexual orientation, race. No matter who files a particular tax return the amount of tax paid will always be that same. Glad we agree that you gave a false example of something that is not applied equally.

That middle block/quote, that's what you said, not what I said.

Now you're just lying. Do I need to link to the actual post?

Anyone else notice the part I bolded? So let's see if I understand the conclusion. Children do better in homes where their parents are married as long as there are no arguments or abuse in that home. Except they didn't place the same restriction on other relationships they studied. You know what that makes that? A useless study that proves nothing. OH, but it does even better. It talks about unstable relationships being the major problem for these children. So basically, it makes the argument for allowing more couples to enter into life-long relationships. I know how we can do that. Same-sex marriage!! Surely, you can do better. You're not even making this difficult. It's a little desperate to use a study that's so blatantly ridiculous.



For crying out loud, :rolleyes: You quoted yourself and attributed it to me. the middle quote/block was yours, not mine...

Great, so you understand that taxes are applied equally. The percentages don't change by sex, age, sexual orientation, race. No matter who files a particular tax return the amount of tax paid will always be that same. Glad we agree that you gave a false example of something that is not applied equally.


Anyone that meets the requirements can get married regardlessly equal treatment for sex, age, sexual orientation, race ...

i dont think it can come from the government. i think it has to be a general social movement. laws can be gotten around. we need to change societal attitudes


Sure it can.

In the same way that the government changed the rules that caused the problems to begin with, it can start to fix them by changing back the changes that didn't improve our situation.


EDIT: fixed hard to read paragraph...

Sure it can. Change in the policies first come through the government that caused th problemsl.

In the same way that the government changed the rules that cuased the problems, it can start to fix it by changing back the ones didn't improve our situation.
no over the will of the people. i dare say that if a repeal of no fault divorce were introduced in every state legislature, it would get very little support from the general public and thus would fail.

Anyone that meets the requirements can get married regardlessly equal treatment for sex, age, sexual orientation, race ...

So my sister and I will both be treated equally if we file the same application for a marriage license requesting that we marry a woman? If not, then your comparison does not hold. With taxes if the paperwork is the same and only the name is different, then it makes no difference to the government and, in fact, it can't. In the above analogy, if the only thing that changes is the name from that of a man to that of woman, according to you it can legally be denied. It's simply not true.

So my sister and I will both be treated equally if we file the same application for a marriage license requesting that we marry a woman? If not, then your comparison does not hold. With taxes if the paperwork is the same and only the name is different, then it makes no difference to the government and, in fact, it can't. In the above analogy, if the only thing that changes is the name from that of a man to that of woman, according to you it can legally be denied. It's simply not true.

Equally applied. You can't marry each other either.

no over the will of the people. i dare say that if a repeal of no fault divorce were introduced in every state legislature, it would get very little support from the general public and thus would fail.


Perhaps you are right, but we will see what happens with the covenant licenses... If they become more popular than the regular kind, no fault divorce dies from being under-used and abandoned, not over-ruled and retracted.

For crying out loud, :rolleyes: You quoted yourself and attributed it to me. the middle quote/block was yours, not mine...

Ha, you're right. I misread your reply and made a mistake in the quoting. But I did make you say 'for crying out loud' so it was worth it.

Perhaps you are right, but we will see what happens with the covenant licenses... If they become more popular than the regular kind, no fault divorce dies from being under-used and abandoned, not over-ruled and retracted.
there is a convenant marriage option in louisiana i think. do you know how popular it is there?

The fallacy here is your repeated denials of reality, Joseph Goebbels undergraduate in action. :p
Greenlander, comparing a NationStates player with Joseph Goebbels goes beyond the pale. You have shown a marked tendency towards oblique personal attacks. Knock it off. NOW.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Equally applied. You can't marry each other either.
Saying it is equally applied doesn't make it so. No one can marry their sister (due to a compelling government interest to decrease birth defects and the possibility of children from any marriage). What part don't you understand. Roughly half the population is denied the ability to marry a woman based on their sex while the other half is not. That is not equally applied. I enjoyed your 'anyone that meets the requirements' statement. Can I say that anyone that meets the requirements is permitted to practice their religion and then have one of the requirements be that they are of a particular religion? One of your requirements is that the participants be of a particular sex? This is a violation of the fourteenth amendment.

Greenlander, comparing a NationStates player with Joseph Goebbels goes beyond the pale. You have shown a marked tendency towards oblique personal attacks. Knock it off. NOW.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop


Greenlander acknowledges proper and deserved reprimand and scolding.

*hangs head in shame*

*resolves to resist further temptation in the future*

there is a convenant marriage option in louisiana i think. do you know how popular it is there?

Currently, only approximately 2% of all newly-contracted marriages in Louisiana are covenants. It should also be noted that a recent survey taken of newlyweds said; 40% of standard wives and 50% of standard husbands report never having heard about covenant marriage until reading about the option in our mail questionnaire. .

However, the divorce rate in Louisiana has shown a marked decline over previous years when the covenant marriage was not an option. This suggests that the mere fact of it’s existence is bringing the seriousness of marriage to the forefront of couples who have heard of it and are serious about their marriages. It’s existence seems to be forcing couples to choose how serious their marriage will be, actually getting them to address the issues and become more serious about it.

The group that does choose covenant marriage are ten times more likely to be religious, to not have lived together before the marriage and not have children out of wedlock (not a big population segment of any state I’m sure :D).

Here’s what the Law Professor who co-drafted the legislation, said…

If a father and a mother committed to each other through lifelong marriage represents the ideal environment for the rearing of responsible, prosperous, and well-adjusted citizens, can the law restore and strengthen the institution of marriage? Law played an indispensable role in the near-destruction of marriage, so surely it can and must in light of its complicity, contribute to the rehabilitation of marriage — for the sake of the children...[P]roponents of covenant marriage must convince each couple of the desirability of covenant marriage, which requires intensive missionary work, winning converts one couple at a time (pp. 69-72).

http://opr.princeton.edu/seminars/nock.f02.pdf#search='louisiana%20divorce%20rates'

In approximately 90% of covenant marriages, both spouses report that they are pleased the marriage is covenant. In contrast, only 35% of standard marriages have spouses who mutually agree that they are pleased that the union is standard.

Saying it is equally applied doesn't make it so. No one can marry their sister (due to a compelling government interest to decrease birth defects and the possibility of children from any marriage). What part don't you understand. Roughly half the population is denied the ability to marry a woman based on their sex while the other half is not. That is not equally applied. I enjoyed your 'anyone that meets the requirements' statement. Can I say that anyone that meets the requirements is permitted to practice their religion and then have one of the requirements be that they are of a particular religion? One of your requirements is that the participants be of a particular sex? This is a violation of the fourteenth amendment.

No violation if the government has a compelling interest in regulating it...

Individuals may choose to marry for all kinds of private reasons, but the reason marriage is a public institution is because it brings together men and women for the purpose of reproducing the human race and keeping a mother and father together to cooperate in raising to maturity the children they produce. The public interest in such behavior is great, because thousands of years of human experience and a vast body of contemporary social science research both demonstrate that married husbands and wives, and the children they conceive and raise, are happier, healthier, and more prosperous than people in any other living situation.

No violation if the government has a compelling interest in regulating it...

Individuals may choose to marry for all kinds of private reasons, but the reason marriage is a public institution is because it brings together men and women for the purpose of reproducing the human race and keeping a mother and father together to cooperate in raising to maturity the children they produce. The public interest in such behavior is great, because thousands of years of human experience and a vast body of contemporary social science research both demonstrate that married husbands and wives, and the children they conceive and raise, are happier, healthier, and more prosperous than people in any other living situation.

The reason marriage is a state institution is it involves property, healthcare, monitary benefits, and more. Marriage isnt just about having kids. Its ones aspect but there are so many more reasons then that. To simplfy it down to just that reason isnt looking at the whole picture.

The reason marriage is a state institution is it involves property, healthcare, monitary benefits, and more. Marriage isnt just about having kids. Its ones aspect but there are so many more reasons then that. To simplfy it down to just that reason isnt looking at the whole picture.

Sure, Marriage has other things in it, but if it does NOT have the possibility of creating new children/citizens, then it's not a ‘marriage’ in the social~civil meaning of the word.

If a contractual relationship between individuals is needed then it needs to be something new, something different and something that has different rules and requirements than the institution of marriage does.

when two people get married, its because either they love each other or want to live with each other for a long period of time.

the first message in this thread kept bringing the "collective interests" into business that is personal and mutual between two consenting persons. Who gives a flying shit whether the communities best interests are protected. Keeping the human race in survival mode requires individuals to respect individual rights and let the community go as it may.

oh, and btw, gay marraiges should be made legal, right away. Why is it that straights can create reality game shows that depict marrage as a joke and something that can be done on a periodical basis?

theres something amiss here.

Sure, Marriage has other things in it, but if it does NOT have the possibility of creating new children/citizens, then it's not a ‘marriage’ in the social~civil meaning of the word.

So infertile couples arent really married?

*snip*



You see, you are thinking about two people getting married all on their own, it’s nobody’s business. That's fine. There is nothing wrong with that. People loving each other and getting together and breaking up etc., it’s none of the governments business.

However, what is the government's interests, or business, and the reason government has an interest in recognizing the marriages of it’s citizens is the children marriages produce.

Government has a vested interest and compelling reason to become involved. Even secular governments have a reason to address and regulate who can and who cannot get married to each other since new citizens need to be protected and raised in the best way possible. It (marriage) has an affect on society/community, so it needs to have rules and definitions and benefits (if any), this is all then in the domain of the governing body...

So infertile couples arent really married?

Infertile couples had the 'possibility' of children by design or medical condition being addressed or by changing of their minds... The government has to consider them potential creators of new citizens.

Infertile couples had the 'possibility' of children by design or medical condition being addressed or by changing of their minds... The government has to consider them potential creators of new citizens.

Okay first you say people who cant have children cant get married. Now you have just changed it so that people who could have kids but cant can get married. Whats with the flip flopping? And if your infertile you cant just be made fertile again. It doesnt work that way unless you have become infertile on purpose ie visectomy. And what do you mean by changing of their minds?

Okay first you say people who cant have children cant get married. Now you have just changed it so that people who could have kids but cant can get married. Whats with the flip flopping? And if your infertile you cant just be made fertile again. It doesnt work that way unless you have become infertile on purpose ie visectomy. And what do you mean by changing of their minds?


Actually I don't have a problem with saying the government can declare your marriage void/annulled etc., (not saying which government ~ the concept of government has this power) If you are married and you don't produce the anticipated progeny, then you lose you license.

Fertility drugs and medical procedures can make people who were previously unfertile fertile couples. Then, some people will get married with the intention of NOT having children, but ten years later, change their minds and have them then. Or they are unaware if they can get pregnant or not, but being a sexually active couple of man and woman, the government has to assume that they 'might' get pregnant and thus, allows them a marriage license...

I did not switch what I said about the meaning of marriage, you misunderstood.

:confused:
So from a thread that was meant to criticise single-parent family (and supposedly gay marriage) it has changed now to "you are only allowed to be married to the person you love if you make plenty of children!"

It's amazing the lengths people go to to prove a point...

Actually I don't have a problem with saying the government can declare your marriage void/annulled etc., (not saying which government ~ the concept of government has this power) If you are married and you don't produce the anticipated progeny, then you lose you license.
The government can marry people I agree with that but they should not be able to take the liscense away if people arent having kids. Marriage is between two consenting adults who agree to be joined together and the government recognizes this union. The government however is in no postition to say terminate the union unless the couple wants to.

Fertility drugs and medical procedures can make people who were previously unfertile fertile couples.
I am not talking about people who need viagra to have sex here. I am talking about people who will never be able to have kids through sexual intercourse. A cancer patient who through Kemo can no longer have kids would not be able to be married under your definition.

Then, some people will get married with the intention of NOT having children, but ten years later, change their minds and have them then. Or they are unaware if they can get pregnant or not, but being a sexually active couple of man and woman, the government has to assume that they 'might' get pregnant and thus, allows them a marriage license...
Under this definition it is possible for a lesbian couple to become pregnant with kids so should they be allowed to be married? I mean the government can recognize that through medical procedures its possible for them to have kids.

I did not switch what I said about the meaning of marriage, you misunderstood.
First you said couples that cant have kids can not be married. Then you said some could. Is that not switching?

The government can marry people I agree with that but they should not be able to take the liscense away if people arent having kids. Marriage is between two consenting adults who agree to be joined together and the government recognizes this union. The government however is in no postition to say terminate the union unless the couple wants to.

I didn’t mean to imply that they ‘should’ take away your marriage license, only that the power could theoretically be given to them, as providers of license to produce a new citizen could likely be considered a liberty in a over populated country. If the privilege to have children is hightly sought after, a government might need to retract a wasted license…

I’ll stand by what I said, it’s in the government’s vested interest to be able to regulate and encourage the safe and good upbringing of children.

I am not talking about people who need viagra to have sex here. I am talking about people who will never be able to have kids through sexual intercourse. A cancer patient who through Kemo can no longer have kids would not be able to be married under your definition.

Neither you nor I know what will and will not be treatable by medical science in the lifetimes of someone applying for a marriage license. But unless the government ‘asks’ (violation of privacy rights in America at this time) if a man and woman are fertile when the license is applied for, the government as to assume that they are fertile and the possibility to produce children is there, so they qualify simply by being a man and a woman.

Under this definition it is possible for a lesbian couple to become pregnant with kids so should they be allowed to be married? I mean the government can recognize that through medical procedures its possible for them to have kids.

It is legal to get pregnant out of wedlock now, they are not being punished if they do so. What is NOT possible is that the lesbian couple will produce a child without the sperm of a third person… They will NOT both be the parents of the child, and the government does not need address the couple as a marriage. Being a couple is irrelevant to your description, a single female person can everything you said without a partner to speak of, should the government recognize her as being able to marry herself?

First you said couples that cant have kids can not be married. Then you said some could. Is that not switching?

Ah, now I see what you are talking about. Yes, same-sex couples CANNOT have children, not together, and the government doesn’t need to ask. But (as pointed out above) the government must assume that man and woman couples applying for marriage licenses ARE fertile.

No violation if the government has a compelling interest in regulating it...

Individuals may choose to marry for all kinds of private reasons, but the reason marriage is a public institution is because it brings together men and women for the purpose of reproducing the human race and keeping a mother and father together to cooperate in raising to maturity the children they produce. The public interest in such behavior is great, because thousands of years of human experience and a vast body of contemporary social science research both demonstrate that married husbands and wives, and the children they conceive and raise, are happier, healthier, and more prosperous than people in any other living situation.
Defend this assertion or discontinue it's use.

In fact, if this is the case why does the state of Utah allow first cousins to marry provided they are over the age of 65 or over the age of 55 and sterile. What do you know a law that allows you to marry provided you don't have children? Sure disputes your assertion.

Every study you've produced has been shown to have serious difficulties in their practices and conclusions. Studies must address other possible causes or factors in order to make conclusions. No study you've produced has even remotely addressed other factors many of which are more plausible than the conclusion those studies purport. You've not even tried to show that those other factors do not affect the study's conclusion and, in general, avoided all of difficulties we've presented with each study. Instead you say things like "you can take up your issues with the University of Minnesota, there is no reason for me to respond to your baseless and angry slander against a child development research report about Father's influence in children's lives."

You've mentioned laws that have to do with children and family as if they automatically mean married families, but you don't address the fact that they generally have nothing to say about families requiring a marriage or marriages requiring children. You mention the department of children and family services. Question: Does children have to have married parents in order to qualify for those services? You keep saying marriage tax law is to support families, but if that is so why isn't all of it blanketed under joint returns rather than having additional benefits relating dependents and children? Why is that we qualify for child and dependent tax benefits without marriage and marriage benefits without children? You want us to stop challenging your assertion, do some work.

:confused:
So from a thread that was meant to criticise single-parent family (and supposedly gay marriage) it has changed now to "you are only allowed to be married to the person you love if you make plenty of children!"

It's amazing the lengths people go to to prove a point...

You obfuscate the question on purpose don’t you? The current topic is mostly about defining when a secular government has the right or responsibility to recognize a marriage between two individuals at all. Why any, and if some, why not others?

I’m saying that the only reason a secular government has any right to interfere and get involved in the agreement between two adults is when a third party (the new anticipated citizen/child) is a possible result of said same union (marriage).

The third party didn't get to pick who and in what situation they would be born, but the fact that they will be citizens means that the government has a vested interest in protecting and guarding and encouraging the best home environment for them. Thus, the government has a vested interest in regulating marriages between one man and one woman. Same Sex couples do not require such government interference... They will not create a new citizen in any way differently than single people are allowed to produce children on their own, outside of wedlock.

Infertile couples had the 'possibility' of children by design or medical condition being addressed or by changing of their minds... The government has to consider them potential creators of new citizens.

Really? So a 65-year-old couple has the ability to has any more possibility of children than two men? Of course not. And it has less than a couple containing two women.

I’ll stand by what I said, it’s in the government’s vested interest to be able to regulate and encourage the safe and good upbringing of children.

*Snip*

It is legal to get pregnant out of wedlock now, they are not being punished if they do so. What is NOT possible is that the lesbian couple will produce a child without the sperm of a third person… They will NOT both be the parents of the child, and the government does not need address the couple as a marriage. Being a couple is irrelevant to your description, a single female person can everything you said without a partner to speak of, should the government recognize her as being able to marry herself?

The emerging data on the consequences of raising children in highly-disrupted homes is confirmed by our findings. Children are put at increased risk for negative outcomes, including conduct problems, when the adult residents in their homes are not stable. In our sample, as in others, early aggression, monitoring and life stress are associated with conduct problems. The family disruption/stability measure that predicted conduct disturbances in our study, which was a rating of the child's familial experience between the ages of 2 and 6, could be used in conjunction with measures of child aggression, for early identification of the children at greatest risk.

I’ll stand by what I said, it’s in the government’s vested interest to be able to regulate and encourage the safe and good upbringing of children.

By your argument and the argument of your source, the government has a vested interest in allowing these lesbians to marry to protect their children because of the effects of 'family disruption/stability' specifically defined by the study as instability the 'adult residents of the home'. This means government sanctioned life-long relationships between two people (what the government calls marriage) is in the best interest of the child. Can you please speak before congress and use these same arguments? it can't help but assist in our cause.

You obfuscate the question on purpose don’t you?

Pot, meet Kettle.

The current topic is mostly about defining when a secular government has the right or responsibility to recognize a marriage between two individuals at all. Why any, and if some, why not others?

How quicky we forgot that marriage is a fundamental right.

By assuming the government should recognize some, but not all, marriages between two adults, you are begging the question.

Why not all marriages between two adult individuals?


I’m saying that the only reason a secular government has any right to interfere and get involved in the agreement between two adults is when a third party (the new anticipated citizen/child) is a possible result of said same union (marriage).

1. So, any couple beyond the age of fertility has no right to get married?

(I saw your dodge earlier that the goverment "must" assume any couple of different genders is fertile. Why? As the question above points out this is obviously not the case.)

2. So, all of the over 1,000 rights, benefits, and privileges of marriage under federal law that are not strictly related to chidbirth or child-rearing should be abolished. The government has no "right to interfere or get involved" excpet when a third party is involved. :rolleyes:

3. All divorce law should be abolished except when a couple has children. If the "union" is dissolving and there are no children, then there is no possible way the union could result in a third party, is there? (Rather contradicts your "covenant marriage" proposal, doesn't it?)

The third party didn't get to pick who and in what situation they would be born, but the fact that they will be citizens means that the government has a vested interest in protecting and guarding and encouraging the best home environment for them.

Curious. Children born out-of-wedlock are citizens.

Children of homosexuals are citizens. Shouldn't the government encourage the "best home environment" for them?

Thus, the government has a vested interest in regulating marriages between one man and one woman.

Again, begs the question. (And rather admits that the government has not vested interest in preventing marriages that are not between one man and one woman. :p )

Same Sex couples do not require such government interference... They will not create a new citizen in any way differently than single people are allowed to produce children on their own, outside of wedlock.

We have never, ever, limited marriage in any way related to producing children. We allow people that never will and cannot have children to become married.

None of the rights, benefits, privileges, or responsibilities of marriage are contingent on having children or on fertility.

Marriage is a fundamental right. Exclusive to marriage are thousands of rights, benefits, and privileges that are not contingent on producing children.

This marriage = child production argument is an insult to those who are married and do not have children. It is an insult to those who are infertile.

And in addition to being an insult to all same-gender couples, it is a particular insult to those same-gender couples that wish to have children or that do have children.

Shame. Shame on you.

Defend this assertion or discontinue it's use.

~The most favorable outcomes
we observe are for teenagers living with
their biological parents who are married to
each other.

~Finally, this analysis examines the relationship
between behavioral problems and
living arrangements for 12- to 17-year-olds
only. Younger children may benefit from
having their biological father present even
if he is not married to the child’s mother.
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/anf_b31.pdf#search='two%20parent%20family%20better?'


Not surprisingly, teenagers living with married biological parents are far less likely to exhibit behavioral problems than are those living with cohabiters and those living in blended families. Indeed, only 3.6 percent of white teenagers living with married biological parents have emotional and behavioral problems, 18.9 percent have low levels of school engagement, and 7.1 percent have been suspended or expelled. The predicted incidences of these problems for Hispanic teenagers in married biological parent families are similar to those for whites.
http://www.urban.org/Template.cfm?NavMenuID=24&template=/TaggedContent/ViewPublication.cfm&PublicationID=7422

You want us to stop challenging your assertion, do some work.
Actually, the burden of proof lies with the people that want the rest of us to accept SSM as compatible and acceptable places for raising children. Currently, the evidence suggests that biological parents are the best place to raise children, thus, my assertion that government has a compelling interest in promoting and protecting it.


Single parents, cohabiting parents and remarried parents do not have equivalent results in child bearing. SSM results fit into either cohabitating or remarried, neither of which equals the results of biological parents raising their own children in loving and nurturing homes. Government needs to protect and promote more of that. The gay community needs to get their issues addressed separately and differently from marriage and family.

Sorry if this has been posted alreayd, I'll delete it later if I come across it, but I just had to get this out there.

The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 or around that time (DOMA) is a strictly unconstitutional act that was passed only as a result of conservatvive government. (Yes, Clinton was strnagely conservative as a way of battling his scandals in social decisions.) The Constitution leaves all marriage affairs to states, and the federal government cannot infringe upon them at any cost except through an amendment. However, no such amendment has been passed, but has been suggested and not even proposed by Bush. All we need is on major case to get this grimy and unbelieveably illegal law destroyed. Its freakin ridiculous. The Full Faith Clause in the COnstitution forces al lstates to abide by the decisions of other states... and this law ahas been used as a defense NOT to recognize these gay marriages that are legal in certain states. COmpletely unconstitutional. And ridiculous. Makes me sick.

There is and has a been a movement (growing I think) for stronger marriage vows and harder to get divorces, making essentially 2 legal definitions for marriage. Covenant Marriage would allow the courts to force the participants to go to counseling OR wait a much longer durations of 'separation' time before granting a divorce. I think this is a good start. The outcome is not yet known, but the heart of the movement seems to be right.
*snip*

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

The self-proclaimed defender of "traditional" marriage ....

1. Advocates a wholly new form of marriage

2. Advocates a two-tiered system of marriage that cheapens "standard" marriage

:eek: :( :D

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

The self-proclaimed defender of "traditional" marriage ....

1. Advocates a wholly new form of marriage

2. Advocates a two-tiered system of marriage that cheapens "standard" marriage

:eek: :( :D

Exactly right. The standard marriage is too weak already, I've been saying that since the very first post. Adding SSM to it would only make it weaker still.




*hopes Frisbeeteria notices that I stopped myself at this point :) *

*succesfully resisted urge to commit an oblique personal attack*



:D

Exactly right. The standard marriage is too weak already, I've been saying that since the very first post. Adding SSM to it would only make it weaker still. :D

So your point is heterosexuals have commitment issues... :confused:

~The most favorable outcomes
we observe are for teenagers living with
their biological parents who are married to
each other.

This does not address the fact that you are trying to prevent children from being protected who do not have the potential to live in the relationship described above, whether or not the above is the ideal situation. Remember, that you said the government has a compelling interest in protecting these children and your own sources suggest this can be done by allowing SSM. Also, You again ignored that point and cut it out of my post. Your conclusion would be similar to saying that if you discovered that white children are better adapted than black children that black couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.

~Finally, this analysis examines the relationship
between behavioral problems and
living arrangements for 12- to 17-year-olds
only. Younger children may benefit from
having their biological father present even
if he is not married to the child’s mother.
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/anf_b31.pdf#search='two%20parent%20family%20better?'

This editorial doesn't cite studies, it cites other articles. The only statistics it references are the same flawed statistics we keep telling you cannot lead to the conclusion being made. This is why the US Census Bureau of Census (the source of the statistics) does not come to that conclusion, only religious-right groups do.

Not surprisingly, teenagers living with married biological parents are far less likely to exhibit behavioral problems than are those living with cohabiters and those living in blended families. Indeed, only 3.6 percent of white teenagers living with married biological parents have emotional and behavioral problems, 18.9 percent have low levels of school engagement, and 7.1 percent have been suspended or expelled. The predicted incidences of these problems for Hispanic teenagers in married biological parent families are similar to those for whites.
http://www.urban.org/Template.cfm?NavMenuID=24&template=/TaggedContent/ViewPublication.cfm&PublicationID=7422

This study doesn't even look at same-sex couples. I'm sure you'll find that children do better in same-sex homes where they are married versus cohabitating as well. Only we don't recognize marriages for these couples so we can't collect statistics.

Actually, the burden of proof lies with the people that want the rest of us to accept SSM as compatible and acceptable places for raising children. Currently, the evidence suggests that biological parents are the best place to raise children, thus, my assertion that government has a compelling interest in promoting and protecting it.

False. The federal government cannot abridge the rights of a specific group without compelling interest (interest you keep claiming exists and won't support). The burden of proof is on you to show compelling interest to abridge those rights. Your ignorance of the Constitution and it's implications does not make them cease to exist. Your 'evidence' also suggests that more than half of children are not living in this ideal situation or do they not deserve protection as well?

Single parents, cohabiting parents and remarried parents do not have equivalent results in child bearing. SSM results fit into either cohabitating or remarried, neither of which equals the results of biological parents raising their own children in loving and nurturing homes. Government needs to protect and promote more of that. The gay community needs to get their issues addressed separately and differently from marriage and family.
These same-sex couples exist whether or not they are permitted to marriage. The government's denial of their relationships only injures the children in these situations (as shown by your own source). Over half of all children are not being raised in the home you describe. The people those children recognize as parents deserve to be protected as well.

I noticed you ignored almost my entire post and the questions contained within. Not a very effective debate tactic. "I can't address his points so I'll just ignore them." I'll just continue asking them until you address them.

Why are their seperate tax laws for dependents, children and marriage? Why are child tax credits given to unmarried parents? Why are marriage benefits given to marriages with no children and no potential to produce children? Why are some couples allowed to marry in Utah only if the government of Utah is certain they WON'T produce children? You said children and family services is about marriage - support this - do children have to have married biological parents to receive these services? You cut all of these questions out of my post.

Here's a simple question for you, Greenlander, based on some things you've said - if my (theoretical) spouse and I adopted a child, would he/she be our child? Would we be his/her parents? How about if my theoretical spouse was infertile, and so we used a sperm donor? Would that child be ours?

This editorial doesn't cite studies, it cites other articles. The only statistics it references are the same flawed statistics we keep telling you cannot lead to the conclusion being made. This is why the US Census Bureau of Census (the source of the statistics) does not come to that conclusion, only religious-right groups do.


You’re just going to blanket statement the Urban Institute as a religious foundation and dismiss their results? :rolleyes:
http://www.urban.org/

How ‘bout this one then:
Several early influential studies found that boys in divorced families had more adjustment problems than did girls.15 Because these studies have been widely cited, many have come to accept this finding as incontrovertible. Given that boys usually live with their mothers following family disruption, the loss of contact with the same-sex parent could account for such a difference. In addition, boys, compared with girls, may be exposed to more conflict, receive less support from parents and others (because they are believed to be tougher), and be picked on more by custodial mothers (because they resemble their fathers). Other observers have suggested that boys may be more psychologically vulnerable than girls to a range of stressors, including divorce.27 However, a number of other studies have failed to find a gender difference in children's reactions to divorce,17,28 and some studies have found that girls have more problems than do boys.
http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2827/information_show.htm?doc_id=75585

The studies show incontrovertibly that children are best off when they are raised by their own biological parents in two parent homes… Regardless of your denial of it’s evidence.

This study doesn't even look at same-sex couples. I'm sure you'll find that children do better in same-sex homes where they are married versus cohabitating as well. Only we don't recognize marriages for these couples so we can't collect statistics.

This study looks at biological parents, single mothers and cohabitating mothers and remarried households… I’m quite sure you can figure out that SS couples with children fit into either the Single parents, or cohabitating mothers (and since remarried couples also show a descrepency when compared to biological married couple parent results, there is no reason to thing that allowing SSM is somehow going to magically change the results).

False. The federal government cannot abridge the rights of a specific group without compelling interest (interest you keep claiming exists and won't support). The burden of proof is on you to show compelling interest to abridge those rights. Your ignorance of the Constitution and it's implications does not make them cease to exist. Your 'evidence' also suggests that more than half of children are not living in this ideal situation or do they not deserve protection as well?

The compelling interest is the fact that biological parents work best, so the government has a reason to support and encourage it over other choices. Your denial of this fact is unsupported and without basis, you simply don’t want it to be true.

These same-sex couples exist whether or not they are permitted to marriage. The government's denial of their relationships only injures the children in these situations (as shown by your own source).

The children in SS couple environments are protected the same as single mother/parent household are now. Are you suggesting that single parents are somehow discriminated against because they can’t marry themselves? SS couples with children are not discriminated against, they are treated equally with heterosexual single parent families and cohabitating familie, there is no discrimination.

Over half of all children are not being raised in the home you describe. The people those children recognize as parents deserve to be protected as well.

You must not have been paying attention to the statistics I’ve quoted over and over again in this thread. Yes I’ve been crying about it getting worse and worse, from 88% of children being raised in two biological parent households in 1960 to 69% percent today… But the last time I checked, that’s still more than half.

I noticed you ignored almost my entire post and the questions contained within. Not a very effective debate tactic. "I can't address his points so I'll just ignore them." I'll just continue asking them until you address them.

Ignoring statistics that you don’t like and crying bigotry every time some research group’s conclusion points out that biological parents are statistically best at raising children isn’t an effective debating tactic on your part.


Why are their seperate tax laws for dependents, children and marriage? Why are child tax credits given to unmarried parents? Why are marriage benefits given to marriages with no children and no potential to produce children? Why are some couples allowed to marry in Utah only if the government of Utah is certain they WON'T produce children? You said children and family services is about marriage - support this - do children have to have married biological parents to receive these services? You cut all of these questions out of my post.

I’ve already addressed infertile couples, if a man and woman register for a marriage license the system has to assume them to be fertile. If Utah has a first cousin marriage clause, that’s up to them, but it sounds like it would likely be found to be unconstitutional for various reason and is not a very good example of what can be regulated. That’s getting more restrictive, not less restrictive as the SSM’s acceptance would require to become legal. It doesn’t help your argument whatsoever to say that non-children producing couples require MORE regulating rules and stipulations before they can get married, it supports what I say, that SSM are something different and requires it’s own wording because it has different issues than marriage and family do.

Here's a simple question for you, Greenlander, based on some things you've said - if my (theoretical) spouse and I adopted a child, would he/she be our child? Would we be his/her parents? How about if my theoretical spouse was infertile, and so we used a sperm donor? Would that child be ours?


Theoretical has nothing to do with what works best. Man - woman married couples who adopt very young children do better than average (it's been suggested it's exactly because they are screened with a fine-tooth comb and they are determined to do their very best for the child that this would be true). Other age adoption results vary.


If you are trying to 'play' with words about biological parents or not biological parents, and who has children it's a waste of time. It proves nothing and is nothing but a distraction from the real issues here...

SS couples can get artificially inseminated now, the same as a single woman can do it, it's not illegal nor discriminated against.

You’re just going to blanket statement the Urban Institute as a religious foundation and dismiss their results? :rolleyes:
http://www.urban.org/

I would go very slow for you, but you can read at whatever rate you like, so I don't have that level of control. I said they listed no studies only other articles. Where are the original studies? A quick bit of information, it is often necessary to see how studies were conducted to examine their validity. I know you think this is angry and dismissive, but most would just call it thorough and scientific. You want examples of your non-partisan site falling down on the job?

"Single parenthood remains a factor in keeping child poverty at alarmingly high levels. Children living with married parents (either married biological/adoptive parents or married stepparents) are significantly less likely to be living at or below the federal poverty level."
http://www.urban.org/template.cfm?Template=/TaggedContent/ViewPublication.cfm&PublicationID=8969&NavMenuID=95

Hmmmm... Do you see the problem with this claim (psst... this is also ONLY based on census data)? What have they shown here? Are single-parent homes causing child poverty or are single-parent homes just more common in families where poverty is already a problem? We cannot, in fact, draw a conclusion from the raw figures, though your site does.

But wait, your site doesn't even agree with itself. Let's look shall we.

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/310670_B-53.pdf

On page 5 we find a table that says virtually the same percentage of families with married biological parents(38.5%) are in poverty as the overall number of families with married biological parents (40.8%) found on page 6. Also, note that married couples represent a higher percentage of families in poverty among blacks than we find when examining the entire black population. In other words, poor black families are MORE likely to be headed by married biological parents. Sure disputes this sames site's earlier claim that "Single parenthood remains a factor in keeping child poverty at alarmingly high levels." Again, do I need to keep going or can you draw your own conclusions about the worth of editorial articles that show us the actual studies?

How ‘bout this one then:
Several early influential studies found that boys in divorced families had more adjustment problems than did girls.15 Because these studies have been widely cited, many have come to accept this finding as incontrovertible. Given that boys usually live with their mothers following family disruption, the loss of contact with the same-sex parent could account for such a difference. In addition, boys, compared with girls, may be exposed to more conflict, receive less support from parents and others (because they are believed to be tougher), and be picked on more by custodial mothers (because they resemble their fathers). Other observers have suggested that boys may be more psychologically vulnerable than girls to a range of stressors, including divorce.27 However, a number of other studies have failed to find a gender difference in children's reactions to divorce,17,28 and some studies have found that girls have more problems than do boys.
http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2827/information_show.htm?doc_id=75585

The studies show incontrovertibly that children are best off when they are raised by their own biological parents in two parent homes… Regardless of your denial of it’s evidence.

Really? Perhaps you'd like to link these 'incontrovertible' studies instead editorial articles making specious claims. I looked up the only two of these studies they mentioned. Guess what? They're not available online. Guess what else? They're 22 and 23 years old. Again, I'd like to see how the data was collected and analyzed before I come to a conclusion on these studies (a requirement you don't seem to have).

This study looks at biological parents, single mothers and cohabitating mothers and remarried households… I’m quite sure you can figure out that SS couples with children fit into either the Single parents, or cohabitating mothers (and since remarried couples also show a descrepency when compared to biological married couple parent results, there is no reason to thing that allowing SSM is somehow going to magically change the results).

You've seen the study? Good. Can you link me to it? Also, unless a study examines same-sex couples seperately then we cannot draw any conclusions. As I've continually shown your own information suggests that children would benefit from more stable homes whether in SSM or heterosexual marriage. You not only deny this basic right to same-sex couples, you deny that stability to their children.

The compelling interest is the fact that biological parents work best, so the government has a reason to support and encourage it over other choices. Your denial of this fact is unsupported and without basis, you simply don’t want it to be true.

Again, whether this is the ideal situation many children are not living in that situation. Your proposals ignore this. And you are perfectly welcome to ignore this large portion of the population of children. The government is not, however, free to ignore those children. 71% of children living in poverty do not have married biological parents. The government cannot just ignore them by denying their parents the right to get married.

The children in SS couple environments are protected the same as single mother/parent household are now. Are you suggesting that single parents are somehow discriminated against because they can’t marry themselves? SS couples with children are not discriminated against, they are treated equally with heterosexual single parent families and cohabitating familie, there is no discrimination.

What benefits would be made available to an individual by marrying themselves? Can you list them please? Your analogy is so off, it would be funny if you weren't using it to justify bigotry. Marriage benefits are specifically designed around the union of two people. In case you're not paying attention, Same-sex couples (couple means two) = two people - Single (single means one) mothers = one person. Do you need further explanation or can you figure the rest out on your own? Also, other cohabitating families are permitted to marry if they wish. Another poor example.

You must not have been paying attention to the statistics I’ve quoted over and over again in this thread. Yes I’ve been crying about it getting worse and worse, from 88% of children being raised in two biological parent households in 1960 to 69% percent today… But the last time I checked, that’s still more than half.

Fine. 69% now down from 88% back when divorce was virtually illegal and women had almost no rights as spouses or as individuals. Interesting comparison. Tells a little bit about you, I think. That still leaves 31% of children that you are attempting to prevent from having stable homes.

Ignoring statistics that you don’t like and crying bigotry every time some research group’s conclusion points out that biological parents are statistically best at raising children isn’t an effective debating tactic on your part.

I agree. Good thing I'm not doing that. I didn't ignore those statistics. I debunked them. I'm not crying bigotry. I'm saying it's not science. I showed the problem above and in response to every 'study' you've posted. You've ignored them or focused on the fact that I suggested perhaps their reason for avoiding proper statistical protocols was to reach a foregone conclusion due to bigotry. Whether they are bigots or not, they are not scientists.

Conversely, ignoring the problems with statistics you like because without them you have no argument isn't an effective debating tactic either.

I’ve already addressed infertile couples, if a man and woman register for a marriage license the system has to assume them to be fertile. If Utah has a first cousin marriage clause, that’s up to them, but it sounds like it would likely be found to be unconstitutional for various reason and is not a very good example of what can be regulated. That’s getting more restrictive, not less restrictive as the SSM’s acceptance would require to become legal. It doesn’t help your argument whatsoever to say that non-children producing couples require MORE regulating rules and stipulations before they can get married, it supports what I say, that SSM are something different and requires it’s own wording because it has different issues than marriage and family do.

So a law that requires some couples to be infertile somehow coexists with that government only recognizes marriages that can produce children? Huh? The system assumes a couple is fertile when they specifically require them to not be fertile? Are you going to attempt to prove that digging a hole and climbing in it will somehow get you on the roof of your house next? Now that Utah law is not unconstitutional, because unlike you, they realize that they are allowed to violate certain rights if there is a compelling government interest. As that interest has been proven (a doubled chance of birth defect), they produced law that tailors those rights in the most narrow way they could find. See how that works? Oh, and that's actually LESS restrictive as most states don't allow first-cousin marriage at all. And as far as non-child producing couples needing more regulation. You're full of crap. This is NOT regulation of non-child producing couples, it's regulation to ensure first-cousins don't produce children. You can see the difference, yes? SSM can produce children. Since you've already demonstrated that you're aware of what medical science can do regarding fertility, I won't both to explain it to you.

Back to posting those questions you choose to ignore. It's not secret why you're ignoring these questions I've been asking since the beginning of the thread. Quick pull that wool tight, cuz you're pelt's beginning to show, wolf.

Why are their seperate tax laws for dependents, children and marriage? Why are child tax credits given to unmarried parents? Why are marriage benefits given to marriages with no children and no potential to produce children? You said children and family services is about marriage - support this - do children have to have married biological parents to receive these services?

From now on, if you're going to make things up can you do it in the form of a jingle? (I stole that from someone else, but I don't remember from whom)

SS couples can get artificially inseminated now, the same as a single woman can do it, it's not illegal nor discriminated against.

It is discriminated against. A woman and man can get married and if the man cannot inseminate the woman, she can have it done artificially, with the sperm of another man. Their child can be born into a marriage and be raised in a stable, loving home even though it is only the child of one of them. Two women are not allowed to get married and when the one woman1 can't inseminate woman2, woman2 can get it done artificially, with the sperm of another man. Their cannot be born into a marriage and while it is a loving home, it lacks the stability of marriage, even thouh it is only the child of one of them. Single mother's can marry. Infertile couples can marry. You can marry. But you deny this basic rights to these couples, to the parents of these children.

Dude, so you don’t like families, you don’t think children need fathers and mothers, you think children should be treated like property and anybody with enough money should be able to have one… Fine, whatever, those of us that know better will object.


~~~~~
A few more judges who write stuff like the following being nominated by Bush for the SCOTUS and it all comes back to rational judiciary

(I had a dream the other night that 3 more are about to leave :P )

*happy day that will be :D*


Anyway, Dissenting opinion from the Massachusetts Decision:

The marriage statutes do not disqualify individuals on the basis of sexual orientation from entering into marriage. All individuals, with certain exceptions not relevant here, are free to marry. Whether an individual chooses not to marry because of sexual orientation or any other reason should be of no concern to the court.

As a matter of social history, today's opinion may represent a great turning point that many will hail as a tremendous step toward a more just society. As a matter of constitutional jurisprudence, however, the case stands as an aberration. To reach the result it does, the court has tortured the rational basis test beyond recognition. I fully appreciate the strength of the temptation to find this particular law unconstitutional--there is much to be said for the argument that excluding gay and lesbian couples from the benefits of civil marriage is cruelly unfair and hopelessly outdated; the inability to marry has a profound impact on the personal lives of committed gay and lesbian couples (and their children) to whom we are personally close (our friends, neighbors, family members, classmates, and co-workers); and our resolution of this issue takes place under the intense glare of national and international publicity. Speaking metaphorically, these factors have combined to turn the case before us into a "perfect storm" of a constitutional question. In my view, however, such factors make it all the more imperative that we adhere precisely and scrupulously to the established guideposts of our constitutional jurisprudence, a jurisprudence that makes the rational basis test an extremely deferential one that focuses on the rationality, not the persuasiveness, of the potential justifications for the classifications in the legislative scheme. I trust that, once this particular "storm" clears, we will return to the rational basis test as it has always been understood and applied. Applying that deferential test in the manner it is customarily applied, the exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from the institution of civil marriage passes constitutional muster. I respectfully dissent.

Dude, so you don’t like families, you don’t think children need fathers and mothers, you think children should be treated like property and anybody with enough money should be able to have one… Fine, whatever, those of us that know better will object.


Someone set that one up in the nearest cornfield.

Dude, so you don't like families, you think children need a loving home less than you need your precious principals, you think rights should be treated like candy and given only to people that don't stir up your moral outrage... Fine, whatever, those of us that know better will object.

Edit: There's two sides to everything. Couldn't resist pointing out the other one. Not that it'll do much good, what a waste of my bandwidth...

Dude, so you don’t like families, you don’t think children need fathers and mothers, you think children should be treated like property and anybody with enough money should be able to have one… Fine, whatever, those of us that know better will object.

Dude, so you don't like families. You don't think the children that heterosexuals abandon need parents. Fine, whatever, those of us WHO know better will object. (See how much nicer periods make sentences, DUDE.)

Meanwhile, the couples you don't think deserve to be married, infertile couples, same-sex couples, those too old to safely have children, will continue to adopt those children. That is when bigots don't try to deny them the right. See, we care about those children and their ability to grow up in the stable, loving homes that are provided by allowing the couples you think don't deserve marriage to marry and create these stable, loving homes. You can continue to not care about anyone that isn't like you, we have plenty of caring among us to make up for you and your ilk.


Rewording the quote: "I don't have any way to actually respond to posts that include science, proper statistical analysis, history and a constitutional understanding, so I'll just accuse you of hating families"

you think children should be treated like property and anybody with enough money should be able to have one…
That one made me laugh out loud.

That one made me laugh out loud.

Actually, it crossed my mind that maybe that's a good thing. It'd make people value them more.

Actually, it crossed my mind that maybe that's a good thing. It'd make people value them more.

No, no, anyone with a cock and twelve dollars for a six-pack and anyone with a uterus and a low alcohol tolerance should be allowed to have one, together. And only them and only together.

Jesus... this is still going on? :eek:

Ok... let's go through the question again...

Why do you care?

Good job not reading the actual posts ... The topic is founding fathers views, not constitution.

Because as we all know the constitution was not written by the founding fathers, it was written by the Bavarian Illuminati in conjunction with the Alien Greys . . .

Greenlander, did you even bother to READ WHAT YOU WROTE?

Consider: If preferring husbands and wives who can become mothers and fathers together is "bias" or "discrimination," then people who think such views are bigots.


Exactly! Thank you for finaly admitting it.

Because as we all know the constitution was not written by the founding fathers, it was written by the Bavarian Illuminati in conjunction with the Alien Greys . . .

Greenlander, did you even bother to READ WHAT YOU WROTE?


Actually, the magic pictures on the wall told me that they wrote two or three other things in addition to the constitution... :D

Why do I have to read what I write? You'll misread what I write either way :p

A few more judges who write stuff like the following being nominated by Bush for the SCOTUS and it all comes back to rational judiciary

Um, you realize that SCOTUS cannot change the outcome of most of the challenges to bars to same-gender marriages -- as they are raised under state constitutions.

For example, the Massachusetts decision you cite below held that the state's marriage laws violated the Massachusetts Constitution. No matter who is on the US Supreme Court, they could not change the outcome of that case.

Anyway, Dissenting opinion from the Massachusetts Decision:

*snip*

Although you have a fondness for conservative dissents, the majority opinion makes clear the rightness of the Massachusetts' Supreme Court's decision (http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/supremejudicialcourt/goodridge.html). That opinion is some 15 pages long, so I offer the following highlights:

Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.

We are mindful that our decision marks a change in the history of our marriage law. Many people hold deep-seated religious, moral, and ethical convictions that marriage should be limited to the union of one man and one woman, and that homosexual conduct is immoral. Many hold equally strong religious, moral, and ethical convictions that same-sex couples are entitled to be married, and that homosexual persons should be treated no differently than their heterosexual neighbors. Neither view answers the question before us. Our concern is with the Massachusetts Constitution as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach. "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 2480 (2003) (Lawrence ), quoting Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850 (1992).

...

The Massachusetts Constitution is, if anything, more protective of individual liberty and equality than the Federal Constitution; it may demand broader protection for fundamental rights; and it is less tolerant of government intrusion into the protected spheres of private life.

Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law.

....

The larger question is whether, as the department claims, government action that bars same-sex couples from civil marriage constitutes a legitimate exercise of the State's authority to regulate conduct, or whether, as the plaintiffs claim, this categorical marriage exclusion violates the Massachusetts Constitution. We have recognized the long-standing statutory understanding, derived from the common law, that "marriage" means the lawful union of a woman and a man. But that history cannot and does not foreclose the constitutional question.

The plaintiffs' claim that the marriage restriction violates the Massachusetts Constitution can be analyzed in two ways. Does it offend the Constitution's guarantees of equality before the law? Or do the liberty and due process provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution secure the plaintiffs' right to marry their chosen partner? In matters implicating marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children, the two constitutional concepts frequently overlap, as they do here. See, e.g., M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 120 (1996) (noting convergence of due process and equal protection principles in cases concerning parent-child relationships); Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, 728 (1948) (analyzing statutory ban on interracial marriage as equal protection violation concerning regulation of fundamental right). See also Lawrence, supra at 2482 ("Equality of treatment and the due process right to demand respect for conduct protected by the substantive guarantee of liberty are linked in important respects, and a decision on the latter point advances both interests"); Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) (racial segregation in District of Columbia public schools violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution), decided the same day as Brown v. Board of Educ. of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (holding that segregation of public schools in the States violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment). Much of what we say concerning one standard applies to the other.

We begin by considering the nature of civil marriage itself. Simply put, the government creates civil marriage. In Massachusetts, civil marriage is, and since pre-Colonial days has been, precisely what its name implies: a wholly secular institution. See Commonwealth v. Munson, 127 Mass. 459, 460-466 (1879) (noting that "n Massachusetts, from very early times, the requisites of a valid marriage have been regulated by statutes of the Colony, Province, and Commonwealth," and surveying marriage statutes from 1639 through 1834). No religious ceremony has ever been required to validate a Massachusetts marriage. [I]Id.

In a real sense, there are three partners to every civil marriage: two willing spouses and an approving State. See DeMatteo v. DeMatteo, 436 Mass. 18, 31 (2002) ("Marriage is not a mere contract between two parties but a legal status from which certain rights and obligations arise"); Smith v. Smith, 171 Mass. 404, 409 (1898) (on marriage, the parties "assume[ ] new relations to each other and to the State"). See also French v. McAnarney, 290 Mass. 544, 546 (1935). While only the parties can mutually assent to marriage, the terms of the marriage--who may marry and what obligations, benefits, and liabilities attach to civil marriage--are set by the Commonwealth. Conversely, while only the parties can agree to end the marriage (absent the death of one of them or a marriage void ab initio), the Commonwealth defines the exit terms. See G.L. c. 208.

Civil marriage is created and regulated through exercise of the police power. ... Without question, civil marriage enhances the "welfare of the community." It is a "social institution of the highest importance." French v. McAnarney, supra. Civil marriage anchors an ordered society by encouraging stable relationships over transient ones. It is central to the way the Commonwealth identifies individuals, provides for the orderly distribution of property, ensures that children and adults are cared for and supported whenever possible from private rather than public funds, and tracks important epidemiological and demographic data.

Marriage also bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry. Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. "It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965). Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of self-definition.

Tangible as well as intangible benefits flow from marriage. The marriage license grants valuable property rights to those who meet the entry requirements, and who agree to what might otherwise be a burdensome degree of government regulation of their activities. [FN13] See Leduc v. Commonwealth, 421 Mass. 433, 435 (1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 827 (1996) ( "The historical aim of licensure generally is preservation of public health, safety, and welfare by extending the public trust only to those with proven qualifications"). The Legislature has conferred on "each party substantial rights concerning the assets of the other which unmarried cohabitants do not have." [I]Wilcox v. Trautz, 427 Mass. 326, 334 (1998). See Collins v. Guggenheim, 417 Mass. 615, 618 (1994) (rejecting claim for equitable distribution of property where plaintiff cohabited with but did not marry defendant); Feliciano v. Rosemar Silver Co., 401 Mass. 141, 142 (1987) (government interest in promoting marriage would be "subverted" by recognition of "a right to recover for loss of consortium by a person who has not accepted the correlative responsibilities of marriage"); Davis v. Misiano, 373 Mass. 261, 263 (1977) (unmarried partners not entitled to rights of separate support or alimony). See generally Attorney Gen. v. Desilets, 418 Mass. 316, 327-328 & nn. 10, 11 (1994).

The benefits accessible only by way of a marriage license are enormous, touching nearly every aspect of life and death. The department states that "hundreds of statutes" are related to marriage and to marital benefits. With no attempt to be comprehensive, we note that some of the statutory benefits conferred by the Legislature on those who enter into civil marriage include, as to property: joint Massachusetts income tax filing (G.L. c. 62C, § 6); tenancy by the entirety (a form of ownership that provides certain protections against creditors and allows for the automatic descent of property to the surviving spouse without probate) (G.L. c. 184, § 7); extension of the benefit of the homestead protection (securing up to $300,000 in equity from creditors) to one's spouse and children (G.L. c. 188, § 1); automatic rights to inherit the property of a deceased spouse who does not leave a will (G.L. c. 190, § 1); the rights of elective share and of dower (which allow surviving spouses certain property rights where the decedent spouse has not made adequate provision for the survivor in a will) (G.L. c. 191, § 15, and G.L. c. 189); entitlement to wages owed to a deceased employee (G.L. c. 149, § 178A [general] and G.L. c. 149, § 178C [public employees] ); eligibility to continue certain businesses of a deceased spouse (e.g., G.L. c. 112, § 53 [dentist] ); the right to share the medical policy of one's spouse (e.g., G.L. c. 175, § 108, Second [a ] [3] [defining an insured's "dependent" to include one's spouse), see Connors v. Boston, 430 Mass. 31, 43 (1999) [domestic partners of city employees not included within the term "dependent" as used in G.L. c. 32B, § 2] ); thirty-nine week continuation of health coverage for the spouse of a person who is laid off or dies (e.g., G.L. c. 175, § 110G); preferential options under the Commonwealth's pension system (see G.L. c. 32, § 12[2] ["Joint and Last Survivor Allowance"] ); preferential benefits in the Commonwealth's medical program, MassHealth (e.g., 130 Code Mass. Regs. § 515.012[A] prohibiting placing a lien on long-term care patient's former home if spouse still lives there); access to veterans' spousal benefits and preferences (e.g., G.L. c. 115, § 1 [defining "dependents"] and G.L. c. 31, § 26 [State employment] and § 28 [municipal employees] ); financial protections for spouses of certain Commonwealth employees (fire fighters, police officers, prosecutors, among others) killed in the performance of duty (e.g., G.L. c. 32, §§ 100-103); the equitable division of marital property on divorce (G.L. c. 208, § 34); temporary and permanent alimony rights (G.L. c. 208, §§ 17 and 34); the right to separate support on separation of the parties that does not result in divorce (G.L. c. 209, § 32); and the right to bring claims for wrongful death and loss of consortium, and for funeral and burial expenses and punitive damages resulting from tort actions (G.L. c. 229, §§ 1 and 2; G.L. c. 228, § 1. See Feliciano v. Rosemar Silver Co., supra ).

Exclusive marital benefits that are not directly tied to property rights include the presumptions of legitimacy and parentage of children born to a married couple (G.L. c. 209C, § 6, and G.L. c. 46, § 4B); and evidentiary rights, such as the prohibition against spouses testifying against one another about their private conversations, applicable in both civil and criminal cases (G.L. c. 233, § 20). Other statutory benefits of a personal nature available only to married individuals include qualification for bereavement or medical leave to care for individuals related by blood or marriage (G.L. c. 149, § 52D); an automatic "family member" preference to make medical decisions for an incompetent or disabled spouse who does not have a contrary health care proxy, see Shine v. Vega, 429 Mass. 456, 466 (1999); the application of predictable rules of child custody, visitation, support, and removal out-of-State when married parents divorce (e.g., G.L. c. 208, § 19 [temporary custody], § 20 [temporary support], § 28 [custody and support on judgment of divorce], § 30 [removal from Commonwealth], and § 31 [shared custody plan]; priority rights to administer the estate of a deceased spouse who dies without a will, and requirement that surviving spouse must consent to the appointment of any other person as administrator (G.L. c. 38, § 13 [disposition of body], and G.L. c. 113, § 8 [anatomical gifts] ); and the right to interment in the lot or tomb owned by one's deceased spouse (G.L. c. 114, §§ 29-33).

Where a married couple has children, their children are also directly or indirectly, but no less auspiciously, the recipients of the special legal and economic protections obtained by civil marriage. Notwithstanding the Commonwealth's strong public policy to abolish legal distinctions between marital and nonmarital children in providing for the support and care of minors, see Department of Revenue v. Mason M., 439 Mass. 665 (2003); Woodward v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 435 Mass. 536, 546 (2002), the fact remains that marital children reap a measure of family stability and economic security based on their parents' legally privileged status that is largely inaccessible, or not as readily accessible, to nonmarital children. Some of these benefits are social, such as the enhanced approval that still attends the status of being a marital child. Others are material, such as the greater ease of access to family-based State and Federal benefits that attend the presumptions of one's parentage.

It is undoubtedly for these concrete reasons, as well as for its intimately personal significance, that civil marriage has long been termed a "civil right." See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) ("Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"), quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942); Milford v. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48, 56 (1810) (referring to "civil rights incident to marriages"). See also Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 561 (1993) (identifying marriage as a "civil right[ ]"); Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 242 (1999) (Johnson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (same). The United States Supreme Court has described the right to marry as "of fundamental importance for all individuals" and as "part of the fundamental 'right of privacy' implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause." Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978). See Loving v. Virginia, supra ("The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men"). [FN14]

Without the right to marry--or more properly, the right to choose to marry--one is excluded from the full range of human experience and denied full protection of the laws for one's "avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting human relationship." Baker v. State, supra at 229. Because civil marriage is central to the lives of individuals and the welfare of the community, our laws assiduously protect the individual's right to marry against undue government incursion. Laws may not "interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry." Zablocki v. Redhail, supra at 387. See Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, 714 (1948) ("There can be no prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective and reasonable means"). [FN15]

The individual liberty and equality safeguards of the Massachusetts Constitution protect both "freedom from" unwarranted government intrusion into protected spheres of life and "freedom to" partake in benefits created by the State for the common good. See Bachrach v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 382 Mass. 268, 273 (1981); Dalli v. Board of Educ., 358 Mass. 753, 759 (1971). Both freedoms are involved here. Whether and whom to marry, how to express sexual intimacy, and whether and how to establish a family--these are among the most basic of every individual's liberty and due process rights. See, e.g., Lawrence, supra at 2481; Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152-153 (1973); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 (1972); Loving v. Virginia, supra. And central to personal freedom and security is the assurance that the laws will apply equally to persons in similar situations. "Absolute equality before the law is a fundamental principle of our own Constitution." Opinion of the Justices, 211 Mass. 618, 619 (1912). The liberty interest in choosing whether and whom to marry would be hollow if the Commonwealth could, without sufficient justification, foreclose an individual from freely choosing the person with whom to share an exclusive commitment in the unique institution of civil marriage.

...

No one disputes that the plaintiff couples are families, that many are parents, and that the children they are raising, like all children, need and should have the fullest opportunity to grow up in a secure, protected family unit. Similarly, no one disputes that, under the rubric of marriage, the State provides a cornucopia of substantial benefits to married parents and their children. ... In this case, we are confronted with an entire, sizeable class of parents raising children who have absolutely no access to civil marriage and its protections because they are forbidden from procuring a marriage license. It cannot be rational under our laws, and indeed it is not permitted, to penalize children by depriving them of State benefits because the State disapproves of their parents' sexual orientation.

...

Here, the plaintiffs seek only to be married, not to undermine the institution of civil marriage. They do not want marriage abolished. They do not attack the binary nature of marriage, the consanguinity provisions, or any of the other gate-keeping provisions of the marriage licensing law. Recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of the same sex will not diminish the validity or dignity of opposite-sex marriage, any more than recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of a different race devalues the marriage of a person who marries someone of her own race. [FN28] If anything, extending civil marriage to same-sex couples reinforces the importance of marriage to individuals and communities. That same-sex couples are willing to embrace marriage's solemn obligations of exclusivity, mutual support, and commitment to one another is a testament to the enduring place of marriage in our laws and in the human spirit. [FN29]

...

The history of constitutional law "is the story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded." United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 557 (1996) (construing equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit categorical exclusion of women from public military institute). This statement is as true in the area of civil marriage as in any other area of civil rights. See, e.g., Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711 (1948). As a public institution and a right of fundamental importance, civil marriage is an evolving paradigm. The common law was exceptionally harsh toward women who became wives: a woman's legal identity all but evaporated into that of her husband. See generally C.P. Kindregan, Jr., & M.L. Inker, Family Law and Practice §§ 1.9 and 1.10 (3d ed.2002). Thus, one early Nineteenth Century jurist could observe matter of factly that, prior to the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts, "the condition of a slave resembled the connection of a wife with her husband, and of infant children with their father. He is obliged to maintain them, and they cannot be separated from him." Winchendon v. Hatfield, 4 Mass. 123, 129 (1808). But since at least the middle of the Nineteenth Century, both the courts and the Legislature have acted to ameliorate the harshness of the common-law regime. In Bradford v. Worcester, 184 Mass. 557, 562 (1904), we refused to apply the common-law rule that the wife's legal residence was that of her husband to defeat her claim to a municipal "settlement of paupers." In Lewis v. Lewis, 370 Mass. 619, 629 (1976), we abrogated the common-law doctrine immunizing a husband against certain suits because the common-law rule was predicated on "antediluvian assumptions concerning the role and status of women in marriage and in society." Id. at 621. Alarms about the imminent erosion of the "natural" order of marriage were sounded over the demise of antimiscegenation laws, the expansion of the rights of married women, and the introduction of "no-fault" divorce. [FN32] Marriage has survived all of these transformations, and we have no doubt that marriage will continue to be a vibrant and revered institution.


...

The marriage ban works a deep and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason. The absence of any reasonable relationship between, on the one hand, an absolute disqualification of same-sex couples who wish to enter into civil marriage and, on the other, protection of public health, safety, or general welfare, suggests that the marriage restriction is rooted in persistent prejudices against persons who are (or who are believed to be) homosexual. [FN33] "The Constitution cannot control such prejudices but neither can it tolerate them. Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect." Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 433 (1984) (construing Fourteenth Amendment). Limiting the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the basic premises of individual liberty and equality under law protected by the Massachusetts Constitution.


...

We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. This reformulation redresses the plaintiffs' constitutional injury and furthers the aim of marriage to promote stable, exclusive relationships. It advances the two legitimate State interests the department has identified: providing a stable setting for child rearing and conserving State resources. It leaves intact the Legislature's broad discretion to regulate marriage. See Commonwealth v. Stowell, 389 Mass. 171, 175 (1983).

In their complaint the plaintiffs request only a declaration that their exclusion and the exclusion of other qualified same-sex couples from access to civil marriage violates Massachusetts law. We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution.

A few more judges who write stuff like the following being nominated by Bush for the SCOTUS and it all comes back to rational judiciary

Um, you realize that SCOTUS cannot change the outcome of most of the challenges to bars to same-gender marriages -- as they are raised under state constitutions.

For example, the Massachusetts decision you cite below held that the state's marriage laws violated the Massachusetts Constitution. No matter who is on the US Supreme Court, they could not change the outcome of that case.


LOL, whoa geez, that was HUGE! LOL :D I might actually go back and read it sometime... LOL

Anyway, Sure the SCOTUS can do something about it, like the across the board ruling saying, hey, you know what, the constitution says, blah blah blah, and now, magically (Everyone gets abortions and states can't stop it anymore ! I'm NOT really trying to change the topic, I'm looking for a blanket ruling that simultaneously pissed a lot of people off and changed the states right to address a topic).

The SCOTUS and the the federal courts could be removed from being able to consider the cases, you know, have marriage rights taken out of their jurisdiction altogether (this one flabbergasted me when I first heard it, but from my understanding there is a movement that is considering such a move in the legislature ~ but that too could do it).




(p.s., You should watch out for overly large copy-and-paste posting like that, I don't mind, but I got in trouble for that some time ago, just before I got in trouble for calling you famous historical propagandist names :) )


EDIT, said something backwards... middle part.

P.s., Yes about the dissenting part, I've always been one of the rebels that way :cool:

You really have to read at least a few posts before jumping in... I see no need to repeat everything I've already said.

And yet that's almost all you do.

Originally Posted by Greenlander
Consider: If preferring husbands and wives who can become mothers and fathers together is "bias" or "discrimination," then people who think such views are bigots.




Exactly! Thank you for finaly admitting it.


Exactly right, thanks for proving my prediction right.

No, no, anyone with a cock and twelve dollars for a six-pack and anyone with a uterus and a low alcohol tolerance should be allowed to have one, together. And only them and only together.

:eek:

Well, no wonder you're so angry all the time, if you have to pay twelve dollars for a six-pack, I'd be pissed all the time too :D :p

:eek:

Well, no wonder you're so angry all the time, if you have to pay twelve dollars for a six-pack, I'd be pissed all the time too :D :p

no you wouldn't, no one can afford to get pissed at $12 a six pack!

no you wouldn't, no one can afford to get pissed at $12 a six pack!

LOL, yes, finally, you and I agree :D

:eek:

Well, no wonder you're so angry all the time, if you have to pay twelve dollars for a six-pack, I'd be pissed all the time too :D :p

You want to deny people basic rights and I'm the angry one. Pfftt...

I drink good beer. I guess I should have said "a few dollars."

Exactly right, thanks for proving my prediction right.

You predicted that people would, in fact, view bigotry as bigotry. Your prediction was right as soon as you posted it. I just wish more people could adequately recognize bigotry.

You predicted that people would, in fact, view bigotry as bigotry. Your prediction was right as soon as you posted it. I just wish more people could adequately recognize bigotry.


I'm a bigot because I think children are best off with their own biological parents, with a mother who loves them and can teach them self respect, and a father who loves them and teaches them how men should treat women? LOL :p


Let's go out and take one hundred 2 year old girls, you put them with homosexual men couples who love them and I'll put them in with their own mothers and fathers... Then we'll come back when they are in the middle of adolescent throes, say, 15 or so, and see which group is better off statistically.


But I’m the bigot because I think all children would be better off for having a male and a female role model in their home life :rolleyes:

I'm a bigot because I think children are best off with their own biological parents, with a mother who loves them and can teach them self respect, and a father who loves them and teaches them how men should treat women? LOL :p

You're a bigot because you want to deny children married homes when the one you describe above is NOT an option. You're a bigot because you want to deny the RIGHT of marriage to people who can't have children or parents who want children but cannot have them within the couple you described above. I'm glad you are amused by denying people equal rights. The people you are attempting to mistreat are not.

Let's go out and take one hundred 2 year old girls, you put them with homosexual men couples who love them and I'll put them in with their own mothers and fathers... Then we'll come back when they are in the middle of adolescent throes, say, 15 or so, and see which group is better off statistically.

You're speculating. You have no evidence. You even posted a source that suggests the evidence doesn't yet exist.

But I’m the bigot because I think all children would be better off for having a male and a female role model in their home life :rolleyes:

Even if those 'role models' are foster parents or directors of orphanages because same-sex parents are not allowed to marry and many times non-married couples are not permitted to adopt because of the inherent instability of an unmarried couple. You forgot the last half of the sentence.

I'm a bigot *snip*

For once, we agree on something.

Originally Posted by Greenlander
Let's go out and take one hundred 2 year old girls, you put them with homosexual men couples who love them and I'll put them in with their own mothers and fathers... Then we'll come back when they are in the middle of adolescent throes, say, 15 or so, and see which group is better off statistically.

You're speculating. You have no evidence. You even posted a source that suggests the evidence doesn't yet exist.

And you are speculating that everything will be just fine based on what data ~ information?

I suggest, that those one hundred girls do not deserve to be your guinea pigs, you prove to the rest of us that they will be alright and fine and healthy BEFORE we give you an unlimited supply of girl and boy infants to randomly socially experiment on.

And you are speculating that everything will be just fine based on what data ~ information?

I suggest, that those one hundred girls do not deserve to be your guinea pigs, you prove to the rest of us that they will be alright and fine and healthy BEFORE we give you an unlimited supply of girl and boy infants to randomly socially experiment on.

Children are already growing up in same-sex couples and there is no evidence that we should stop this from continuing. Your legislation also does nothing to stop this from happening. What we do have data for is that children are better of in stable, loving homes (like those provided by marriage) and even your sources suggest this is true regardless of the adults (even if you could somehow prove that ideally this would be two people of opposite gender). We do know stability is gained for these children by marriage. We do know that there are children waiting to be adopted that are not being adopted by heterosexual couples and there are homosexual couples that would be glad to care for them if they were permitted to. These couples, these children, would be forming families if people like you weren't trying to stop them. You aren't defending families. You're damaging families by denying their existence and preventing these children from being adopted. It's hateful. It's horrible. How instead of taking those 100 girls, we instead take a trip to the orphanage and tell these children that they could have a family if you weren't denying the fact that these children matter. According to you the only children the government should be protecting is the children who have access to married, heterosexual biological parents. Fortunately, the constitution forbids this kind of specialized protection.

I suggest, that those one hundred girls do not deserve to be your guinea pigs, you prove to the rest of us that they will be alright and fine and healthy BEFORE we give you an unlimited supply of girl and boy infants to randomly socially experiment on.

Weren't you the one who suggested that you put the girls in the different families and compare? Wouldnt they be your guinea pigs?

Weren't you the one who suggested that you put the girls in the different families and compare? Wouldnt they be your guinea pigs?


Ummm, yeah. I'm suddenly NOT the one that says that parents should be educated and trained and taught to raise their own children ... try reading the first post to find out my views about that.

Also try looking this up.

Metaphor ( met·a·phor )

1 : a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly : figurative language -- compare SIMILE
2 : an object, activity, or idea treated as a metaphor : SYMBOL

... we instead take a trip to the orphanage and tell these children that they could have a family if you weren't denying the fact that these children matter. According to you the only children the government should be protecting is the children who have access to married, heterosexual biological parents. Fortunately, the constitution forbids this kind of specialized protection.


So, is your argument that we should allow SSM so that all the orphans in America will be adopted by them? That's the first time I ever heard that, perhaps I'll reconsider, you did verify that they plan on putting this stipulation of SSM licenses right? That they will all adopt a child each? ... :rolleyes:

<snip>

You seem to have misunderstood my post. I was referencing to these two quotes.

Let's go out and take one hundred 2 year old girls, you put them with homosexual men couples who love them and I'll put them in with their own mothers and fathers... Then we'll come back when they are in the middle of adolescent throes, say, 15 or so, and see which group is better off statistically.


I suggest, that those one hundred girls do not deserve to be your guinea pigs, you prove to the rest of us that they will be alright and fine and healthy BEFORE we give you an unlimited supply of girl and boy infants to randomly socially experiment on.

In the first one you say there should be an experiment with girls and then you go around saying that these girls dont deserve to be the guinea pigs of the other poster. In essense you suggested the experiment and then decided to attack the other side for the very idea you suggest.

Actually, the burden of proof lies with the people that want the rest of us to accept SSM as compatible and acceptable places for raising children. Currently, the evidence suggests that biological parents are the best place to raise children, thus, my assertion that government has a compelling interest in promoting and protecting it.

Single parents, cohabiting parents and remarried parents do not have equivalent results in child bearing. SSM results fit into either cohabitating or remarried, neither of which equals the results of biological parents raising their own children in loving and nurturing homes. Government needs to protect and promote more of that. The gay community needs to get their issues addressed separately and differently from marriage and family.

<sigh>

I don't know why I bother as this is like talking to a wall, but ... Fine.

Your evidence does not really support your conclusion. Making analogies between single parents, co-habitating parents, etc., and same-gender couples is a false comparison.

Moreoever, evidence to the contrary of your thesis has already been put forth several times.

But, here is more evidence.

First, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics all disagree with you regarding the acceptability of same-gender couples raising children.

APA POLICY STATEMENT Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html)

Many lesbians and gay men are parents. In the 2000 U. S. Census, 33% of female same-sex couple households and 22% of male same-sex couple households reported at least one child under the age of 18 living in the home. Despite the significant presence of at least 163,879 households headed by lesbian or gay parents in U.S. society, three major concerns about lesbian and gay parents are commonly voiced (Falk, 1994; Patterson, Fulcher & Wainright, 2002). These include concerns that lesbians and gay men are mentally ill, that lesbians are less maternal than heterosexual women, and that lesbians' and gay men's relationships with their sexual partners leave little time for their relationships with their children. In general, research has failed to provide a basis for any of these concerns (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002; Tasker, 1999; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). ... beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly in their approaches to child rearing (Patterson, 2000; Tasker, 1999). Members of gay and lesbian couples with children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners (Patterson, 2000, 2004a). The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation (Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children.
American Academy of Pediatrics: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents (http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/339)

Children who are born to or adopted by 1 member of a same-sex couple deserve the security of 2 legally recognized parents. ... Children deserve to know that their relationships with both of their parents are stable and legally recognized. This applies to all children, whether their parents are of the same or opposite sex. The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual.1–9 When 2 adults participate in parenting a child, they and the child deserve the serenity that comes with legal recognition.

American Medical Association policy regarding sexual orientation (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/14754.html#H-60.940)

Next, there are copious peer-reviewed studies (almost all of which post-date your feeble, biased "there isn't enough information" sources) showing that same-gender parents are healthy for children:

Technical report: coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/109/2/341?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=gay+parents&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1121128595368_21038&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1&journalcode=pediatrics)
A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children's optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.

Gay and Lesbian Families: What We Know and Where to Go From Here (http://tfj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/1/43?maxtoshow=&HITS=50&hits=50&RESULTFORMAT=1&andorexacttitle=and&titleabstract=lesbian+parent&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1121112480383_1719&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&tdate=7/31/2005)
The current body of research has been clear and consistent in establishing that children of gay and lesbian parents are as psychologically healthy as their peers from heterosexual homes.

Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents. A review of studies from 1978 to 2000. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12361102&query_hl=2)
Seven types of outcomes were found to be typical: emotional functioning, sexual preference, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, and cognitive functioning. Children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers did not systematically differ from other children on any of the outcomes. The studies indicate that children raised by lesbian women do not experience adverse outcomes compared with other children. The same holds for children raised by gay men, but more studies should be done.

Children of homoparental families: psychological and sexual development (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15985999&query_hl=2)
RESULTS: All the children showed a good adherence to their sexual role. The observations and interviews proved that the children's disorders are not linked to the parents' homosexuality. CONCLUSIONS: Being brought up by homosexual parents does not seem to compromise the child's future sexual tendency.

Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: a follow-up of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers at early adolescence. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15482501&query_hl=2) CONCLUSIONS: The presence or absence of a father in the home from the outset does appear to have some influence on adolescents' relationships with their mothers. However, being without a resident father from infancy does not seem to have negative consequences for children. In addition, there is no evidence that the sexual orientation of the mother influences parent-child interaction or the socioemotional development of the child.

Reproduction in same sex couples: quality of parenting and child development (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15870566&query_hl=2)A recent study of adolescents living with same sex parents recruited from a large national sample supports the notion that adolescents raised by same sex couples are doing well psychologically and are not more likely to be homosexual. The authors concluded that it was the quality of parenting, not parental sexual orientation that accounted for developmental differences. SUMMARY: The literature supports the notion that children of lesbian mothers and gay fathers are not more likely to become homosexual and are not measurably different from children raised by heterosexual parents in terms of personality development, psychological development, and gender identity.

I found many more such studies. But these should be more than sufficient for now.

Happy?

In the first one you say there should be an experiment with girls and then you go around saying that these girls dont deserve to be the guinea pigs of the other poster. In essense you suggested the experiment and then decided to attack the other side for the very idea you suggest.


Metaphor, allegory, parable, image, simile.


Look those up, then come back, okay?

Metaphor, allegory, parable, image, simile.


Look those up, then come back, okay?

Funny how even if its a metaphor, allegory, whatever you want to call it you stated it and then attacked the other poster for its suggestion. :rolleyes:

Ummm, yeah. I'm suddenly NOT the one that says that parents should be educated and trained tand taught to raise their own children ... try reading the first post to find out my views.

Also try looking this up.

Metaphor ( met·a·phor )

1 : a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly : figurative language -- compare SIMILE
2 : an object, activity, or idea treated as a metaphor : SYMBOL

Maybe you should read that. You didn't use a metaphor. That would be a comparison. You didn't compare anything. I'm amused when people are snarky AND incorrect. I believe you intended to say you used a rhetorical question. That would be if your knowledge of grammatical forms was not exactly equal to your knowledge of constitutional law, history, statistics and sociology.

So, is your argument that we should allow SSM so that all the orphans in America will be adopted by them? That's the first time I ever heard that, perhaps I'll reconsider, you did verify that they plan on putting this stipulation of SSM licenses right? That they will all adopt a child each? ... :rolleyes:

We will make the same child-rearing requirements encoded into law that are encoded into law for heterosexual couples.

Children who are born to or adopted by 1 member of a same-sex couple deserve the security of 2 legally recognized parents. ... Children deserve to know that their relationships with both of their parents are stable and legally recognized. This applies to all children, whether their parents are of the same or opposite sex. The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual.1–9 When 2 adults participate in parenting a child, they and the child deserve the serenity that comes with legal recognition.

I'm in the middle of reading this, and this shows up? what does that mean? How and where did they even get a possible indication from real data that cannot possibly exist?

Obviously this sources is speculating an opinion, not science.

Happy?

Apparently, according to Jacobia, I'm not allowed to published opinion pieces of research, only the raw data itself...

We will make the same child-rearing requirements encoded into law that are encoded into law for heterosexual couples.

Ah, so you didn't really mean it, that's too bad.

THARES ALREADY A FORUM LIKE THISE #*%^HEAD GO TO THAT ONE DAMNIT

I'm in the middle of reading this, and this shows up? what does that mean? How and where did they even get a possible indication from real data that cannot possibly exist?

Obviously this sources is speculating an opinion, not science.

It is reaching a conclusion. If your source comes to a conclusion that follows from the study then it's perfectly acceptable. Do I have to repost all of the issues with your sources? I'm perfectly happy to do so. Cat's hates reposting, but I think it's funny.

See how his studies are actually performed in the last twenty years.

YOU *&$% NEWBS ARE ALL THE SAME!

Ah, so you didn't really mean it, that's too bad.

I wouldn't infringe upon their rights to not raise children as well. However, your prejudices and your claims are specifically the reaons why they cannot obtain marriages and adopt children if they so wish. THIS denial is the attack on family.

*snip*

Just curious, did you happen to notice, that none of those studies you cited included such topics as, school grades, school attendance, police records, graduation rates etc., but instead, things like, social acceptance, and social sexuality?

Perhaps they should do some more studies about things children should be worried about instead of things sexual adults are concerned with? You know, like school grades and participation in school groups and school participation and the avoidance of drugs, alcohol etc.

I wouldn't infringe upon their rights to not raise children as well. However, your prejudices and your claims are specifically the reaons why they cannot obtain marriages and adopt children if they so wish. THIS denial is the attack on family.


This denial, as you put it, is a defense of children and families from a small group that wants to socially experiment via forced social engineering on children. I'm not ashamed at all to possibly err on the side of protecting children.

YOU *&$% NEWBS ARE ALL THE SAME!


Pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot. :rolleyes:

"This denial, as you put it, is a defense of children and families from a small group that wants to socially experiment via forced social engineering on children. I'm not ashamed at all to possibly err on the side of protecting children..." by denying them access to married parents.

"This denial, as you put it, is a defense of children and families from a small group that wants to socially experiment via forced social engineering on children. I'm not ashamed at all to possibly err on the side of protecting children..." by denying them access to married parents.


Yes, by denying them to be forced into a home life that will be two parents that are, either of the same sex, OR the opposite sex. But your experiment WILL deprive them of one the right to both. They will either not have the opposite sex in their home life or will not have their own gender as an example in their home life ~ and you have nothing but supposition to make us think they don’t need it and they will be just fine because everyone loves them…

Again, I’m not sorry to err on the side of caution that is on the side of protecting children from the unknown and the unproven experimentation that you would have us put them through.

Yes, by denying them access to a parent that is, either of the same sex, OR the opposite sex. But your experiment WILL deprive them of one or the other of those two options. They will either not have the opposite sex in their home life or this will not have their own gender as an example in their home life ~ and you have nothing but supposition to make us think they don’t need it and they will be just fine because everyone loves them…

Again, I’m not sorry to err on the side of caution that is on the side of protecting children from the unknown and the unproven experimentation that you would have us put them through.

MY experiment? Yes, now they have neither. It's two or none for you, huh? Good to know you are willing to 'err on the side of caution' at the expense of these children. Good to know it's more important to you to take rights away from people than to chance that these kids get only one sex of parent instead of none.

THARES ALREADY A FORUM LIKE THISE #*%^HEAD GO TO THAT ONE DAMNIT

The ridiculous font is unnecessary and annoying.

Otherwise, WTF are you talking about?

The ridiculous font is unnecessary and annoying.

Otherwise, WTF are you talking about?


Wow, I did not expect something that you and I can agree on :D :p

/signed what Cat said.

The ridiculous font is unnecessary and annoying.
Otherwise, WTF are you talking about?

Oh yeah, that's not trolling or anything.

Giant red font with poor spelling and grammar along with thinly veiled insults clearly contributes to the discussion. :rolleyes:

MY experiment? Yes, now they have neither. It's two or none for you, huh? Good to know you are willing to 'err on the side of caution' at the expense of these children. Good to know it's more important to you to take rights away from people than to chance that these kids get only one sex of parent instead of none.


there's already children in those situations, as you said yourself, lets see how they do, lets allow them to grow up (we don't have any other choice really) but the least we can do is SEE what types of results we get before we freely and without restriction continue the experiment on other children on purpose.

Just curious, did you happen to notice, that none of those studies you cited included such topics as, school grades, school attendance, police records, graduation rates etc., but instead, things like, social acceptance, and social sexuality?

Perhaps they should do some more studies about things children should be worried about instead of things sexual adults are concerned with? You know, like school grades and participation in school groups and school participation and the avoidance of drugs, alcohol etc.

1. Again, there is an absence of credible evidence on your side.

2. I knew you would rely on some sweeping generalization to try to dismiss the copious scientific evidence. But failure to use certain magic words you were looking for does not constitute a significan flaw in any of these studies.

3. That some of the studies do not expressly mention these factors in the portions I quoted does not mean they were not considered.

4. At least some of the studies obviously did consider such factors. Review the studies again and consider the quotes below. Behavior, academic performance, conduct, etc, were considered. Teachers were interviewed and school records were reviewed.

Psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic relationships of adolescents with same-sex parents. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15566386&query_hl=2)

This study examined associations among family type (same-sex vs. opposite-sex parents); family and relationship variables; and the psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic attractions and behaviors of adolescents. ... Normative analyses indicated that, on measures of psychosocial adjustment and school outcomes, adolescents were functioning well, and their adjustment was not generally associated with family type. Assessments of romantic relationships and sexual behavior were not associated with family type.

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/109/2/341?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=gay+parents&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1121128595368_21038&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1&journalcode=pediatrics)

Several studies comparing children who have a lesbian mother with children who have a heterosexual mother have failed to document any differences between such groups on personality measures, measures of peer group relationships, self-esteem, behavioral difficulties, academic success, or warmth and quality of family relationships
Children born to and raised by lesbian couples also seem to develop normally in every way. Ratings by their mothers and teachers have demonstrated children’s social competence and the prevalence of behavioral difficulties to be comparable with population norms.8,24 In fact, growing up with parents who are lesbian or gay may confer some advantages to children. They have been described as more tolerant of diversity and more nurturing toward younger children than children whose parents are heterosexual.

APA POLICY STATEMENT: Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html)

Studies of other aspects of personal development (including personality, self-concept, and conduct) similarly reveal few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents (Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999). Evidence also suggests that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal social relationships with peers and adults (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). The picture that emerges from research is one of general engagement in social life with peers, parents, family members, and friends. Fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no scientific support. Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents.

Children in Lesbian-led Families: A Review (http://ccp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/2/153?maxtoshow=&HITS=50&hits=50&RESULTFORMAT=1&andorexacttitle=and&titleabstract=lesbian+parent&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1121112935367_1722&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=50&sortspec=relevance&tdate=7/31/2005)

Research on non-clinical samples of children raised in lesbian-led families formed after parental divorce, together with studies of children raised in families planned by a single lesbian mother or lesbian couple, suggest that growing up in a lesbian-led family does not have negative effects on key developmental outcomes. In many ways family life for children growing up in lesbian-led families is similar to that experienced by children in heterosexual families.

Donor insemination: child development and family functioning in lesbian mother families (http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/6/1349?maxtoshow=&HITS=50&hits=50&RESULTFORMAT=1&andorexacttitle=and&titleabstract=lesbian+parent&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1121112480383_1719&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&tdate=7/31/2005)

With regard to their emotional/behavioural development, boys and girls raised in lesbian mother families were well adjusted and their gender role development did not differ from that of children raised in heterosexual families. These results indicate that child and family development in lesbian mother families is similar to that of heterosexual families.

Children with lesbian parents: a community study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12518806&query_hl=2)

The present study examined the quality of parent-child relationships and the socioemotional and gender development of a community sample of 7-year-old children with lesbian parents. Families were recruited through the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, a geographic population study of 14,000 mothers and their children. Thirty-nine lesbian-mother families, 74 two-parent heterosexual families, and 60 families headed by single heterosexual mothers were compared on standardized interview and questionnaire measures administered to mothers, co-mothers/fathers, children, and teachers. Findings are in line with those of earlier investigations showing positive mother-child relationships and well-adjusted children.

there's already children in those situations, as you said yourself, lets see how they do, lets allow them to grow up (we don't have any other choice really) but the least we can do is SEE what types of results we get before we freely and without restriction continue the experiment on other children on purpose.

So how are you going to lump all the abuse the kids will recieve? In the blame it on the parents or society's intolerance and ignorace?

1. Again, there is an absence of credible evidence on your side.

2. I knew you would rely on some sweeping generalization to try to dismiss the copious scientific evidence. But failure to use certain magic words you were looking for does not constitute a significan flaw in any of these studies.

3. That some of the studies do not expressly mention these factors in the portions I quoted does not mean they were not considered.

4. At least some of the studies obviously did consider such factors. Review the studies again and consider the quotes below. Behavior, academic performance, conduct, etc, were considered. Teachers were interviewed and school records were reviewed.

I stand by my earlier assessment, none of your reports are subjective to how children do compare to each other in school success rates, child behavior problems, drug use or child with child social groups… Your studies are point out that these children love their mothers equally. I haven’t challenged that. Your reports suggest that they have a social and sexual outlook on life similar to heterosexual single mothers and couples, I never challenged that (per-se, but I would like to see this result in twenty years after these children have been adults for a period of time, to see if they differ from children of heterosexual mothers or heterosexual couples).


1: Psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic relationships of adolescents with same-sex parents.

2: A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.

3: For instance, one such concern is that children brought up by lesbian mothers or gay fathers will show disturbances in gender identity and/or in gender role behavior. A second category of concerns involves aspects of children's personal development other than sexual identity. For example, some observers have expressed fears that children in the custody of gay or lesbian parents would be more vulnerable to mental breakdown, would exhibit more adjustment difficulties and behavior problems, or would be less psychologically healthy than other children. A third category of concerns is that children of lesbian and gay parents will experience difficulty in social relationships.

4: This article examines the claim that children of lesbians and gay men are different to those of heterosexuals, particularly in their gender and sexual identity.

5: With regard to their emotional/behavioural development, boys and girls raised in lesbian mother families were well adjusted and their gender role development did not differ from that of children raised in heterosexual families.

6: Thirty-nine lesbian-mother families, 74 two-parent heterosexual families, and 60 families headed by single heterosexual mothers were compared on standardized interview and questionnaire measures administered to mothers, co-mothers/fathers, children, and teachers. Findings are in line with those of earlier investigations showing positive mother-child relationships and well-adjusted children.

All of those quotes from their own sites, tell that what I said is true. These surveys are not designed to test the child development in child measurement ways, Like school performance and after school activities and social interaction with other children etc.

So how are you going to lump all the abuse the kids will recieve? In the blame it on the parents or society's intolerance and ignorace?

Why are you making excuses already?

Why are you making excuses already?

O no its just that I have seen gay kids constantly ridiculed in highschool and what not so I was just wondering if we are going to be talking about the mental effects of raising kids in SS couples which group section you would be putting the ridecule the kids would be facing into?

O no its just that I have seen gay kids constantly ridiculed in highschool and what not so I was just wondering if we are going to be talking about the mental effects of raising kids in SS couples which group you would lump them into?


Do you have any reason to believe that heterosexual children being raised by homosexual parents are going to have the same or similar problems as homosexual students?

there's already children in those situations, as you said yourself, lets see how they do, lets allow them to grow up (we don't have any other choice really) but the least we can do is SEE what types of results we get before we freely and without restriction continue the experiment on other children on purpose.

So let's see. First of all, you've seen Cat's post and haven't even argued that it's not credible evidence, just that it doesn't say what you want it to say. Second, you would like to deny rights to an entire generation of people as an experiment. Third, you would leave an entire generation of children abandoned in foster care and group homes, so you can wait to find out why Cat has shown you tons of studies that supports allowing these children to have families. Yes, you're a really caring Christian, you are. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not lie. What's next? Oh, yes. Thou shalt not allow those crazy homosexuals any rights or to raise children.

Do you have any reason to believe that heterosexual children being raised by homosexual parents are going to have the same or similar problems as homosexual students?

Playing coy? You should know how vicious kids are in high school/ middle school. You want reasons okay lets go with the ignorance of the children. Their ability to group popular people togehter and isolating the so called out casts. I could go on but I mean come on man you think kids dont make fun of other kids because of shit their parents do?

So let's see. First of all, you've seen Cat's post and haven't even argued that it's not credible evidence, just that it doesn't say what you want it to say. Second, you would like to deny rights to an entire generation of people as an experiment. Third, you would leave an entire generation of children abandoned in foster care and group homes, so you can wait to find out why Cat has shown you tons of studies that supports allowing these children to have families. Yes, you're a really caring Christian, you are. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not lie. What's next? Oh, yes. Thou shalt not allow those crazy homosexuals any rights or to raise children.


I argued that it doesn't say anything to counter my accusations... Children raised outside of households that consist of their biological parents fare worse. In school success, in social realms, in success rates of adulthood (income levels and higher education etc.).

Cat's sources don't even address those issues.


You keep talking about foster care and orphans, what does that have to do with SSM? You yourself said they would not be held responsible to do anything about children whatsoever, and I don't have a problem with that.

Lesbian mothers and single or cohabitating heterosexual mothers are and will continue to raise their children and these children need all the assistence we can give them.

But better still, the government has a reason to try and see to it that less and less children end up in these situations, they need to encourage more and more parents to take responsibility for their own off spring and support their children at least up to adulthood, it is the best way.

Adding SSM onto the marriage institution now deters from keeping children with their biological parents, by default, the essence of children in SS households is children removed from at least one of their biological parents.




~~~~no hurry, I'm off for tonight ~~~ back tomorrow.~~~~

I hope this hasn't been posted already...

http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/node/8


12 reasons against gay marraige... ~sarcasm alert~

Playing coy? You should know how vicious kids are in high school/ middle school. You want reasons okay lets go with the ignorance of the children. Their ability to group popular people togehter and isolating the so called out casts. I could go on but I mean come on man you think kids dont make fun of other kids because of shit their parents do?

If you don't have a solution for this, then it doesn't help you case now does it?

WE can go around trying to stop the bullying in schools, even as we already are.... What else can we do about the human condition?

I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's wrong but I can't excuse poor child performance results across the board of single parent and SS parent children because of it.




~~~~~off for tonight~~~~~As said above, but then saw this~~~~

<snip>

For someone who cares so much about the children you have really skirted around this question. We are talking about kids being made fun of because their parents are gay in school. This has nothing to do with the parents choices about rasing the kid or how they teach them. What I am asking you is wheter you will atribute this outside negative influence on the parents being gay or the intolerance and ignorance of the kids making fun of the children. Simple question.

I just have one question for anyone who would care to answer. How can we, as Americans, call ourselves the "land of the free," and proclain equal rights for all and deny any right, in this case the right of marriage as a legal institution, and deny that right to any other citizen. DO NOT DARE POST ANYTHING THAT BACKS YOUR ARGUMENT WITH RELIGION! I don't want to hear your religious bullshit when it is politics that is being discussed.

I hope this hasn't been posted already...

http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/node/8


12 reasons against gay marraige... ~sarcasm alert~
Eurgh...that thing ignited one of the largest wars this forum has ever seen.

I just have one question for anyone who would care to answer. How can we, as Americans, call ourselves the "land of the free," and proclain equal rights for all and deny any right, in this case the right of marriage as a legal institution, and deny that right to any other citizen. DO NOT DARE POST ANYTHING THAT BACKS YOUR ARGUMENT WITH RELIGION! I don't want to hear your religious bullshit when it is politics that is being discussed.
You just destroyed any chance of arguement the opposing side has. Awesome.

Anyways, we aren't Americans anymore. This isn't even the United States of America. No... this is now the Theocracy of United Corporations. Didn't you know? :rolleyes:

I argued that it doesn't say anything to counter my accusations... Children raised outside of households that consist of their biological parents fare worse. In school success, in social realms, in success rates of adulthood (income levels and higher education etc.).

Again, that says nothing to do with SSM. Unless you can say that they will fare worse than Married homosexuals (and you can't) then you have no point. You are lumping them in with other relationships.

You keep talking about foster care and orphans, what does that have to do with SSM? You yourself said they would not be held responsible to do anything about children whatsoever, and I don't have a problem with that.

You keep mentioning children. I still contend that marriage isn't about children. However, no matter how much you argue about the ideal situation, the fact that a large portion of children have no access to that 'ideal situation'. Do they not need to be offered the best situation they DO have access to? Your own sources say the best place for them to be is a situation where the adults do not change, i.e. where the adults are married.

Lesbian mothers and single or cohabitating heterosexual mothers are and will continue to raise their children and these children need all the assistence we can give them.

Yes, like allowing them to commit to their partners to create a stable, loving home with all the benefits of marriage.

But better still, the government has a reason to try and see to it that less and less children end up in these situations, they need to encourage more and more parents to take responsibility for their own off spring and support their children at least up to adulthood, it is the best way.

And bigotry and badly analyzed data does this how? Your amendment doesn't even address children.

Adding SSM onto the marriage institution now deters from keeping children with their biological parents, by default, the essence of children in SS households is children removed from at least one of their biological parents.

HOW? Gay couples are going to start kidnapping children from heterosexual couples? If SSM is just illegal then all those lesbians will just give it up and settle with a heterosexual man? If making SSM illegal is all it takes to 'save the family' why are you complaining that it's so bad off. Clearly, SSM is not the problem. The problem is that a group that takes the benefits of marriage very seriously are being denied access to marriage and a group (heterosexuals) who think it's fun to meet their mates on television or get married in drive-throughs and have completely been taking marriage for granted must be the only group that has access to it according to people like you.

For someone who cares so much about the children you have really skirted around this question. We are talking about kids being made fun of because their parents are gay in school. This has nothing to do with the parents choices about rasing the kid or how they teach them. What I am asking you is wheter you will atribute this outside negative influence on the parents being gay or the intolerance and ignorance of the kids making fun of the children. Simple question.

I don't have a sweeping answer that will be the right answer for everyone... I'll assume that both, and combinations and many other possibilities exists for causing problems. That's the sort of question that can only be answered on a case by case basis.

Eurgh...that thing ignited one of the largest wars this forum has ever seen.

How exactly do you pronounce that first word?

How exactly do you pronounce that first word?

With difficulty?

oh, I came late into this debate, but i would like to ask this question (which was likely asked in one of the previous pages, but I don't have several hours to search through them) Are you stating that it is better to have a same sex couple who don't give a chit about each other or their children then to have a loving family which consists of two people of the same sex? I'm just asking because my heterosexual married parents treated me like a piece dog shit that won't come off of their shoe, and really should not have been allowed around children, and I know same sex couples (yay for Canada!) who are very caring, and would make wonderful parents. And finally, I ask you this: How many same sex couples do you know? Or, are you simply making judgements about a rather large group of people based on the propaganda fed to you by your church?

I'm a bigot because I think children are best off with their own biological parents, with a mother who loves them and can teach them self respect, and a father who loves them and teaches them how men should treat women? LOL :p


Let's go out and take one hundred 2 year old girls, you put them with homosexual men couples who love them and I'll put them in with their own mothers and fathers... Then we'll come back when they are in the middle of adolescent throes, say, 15 or so, and see which group is better off statistically.

The group that is less likely to suffer physical and/or sexual abuse at the hands of their biological father.

oh, I came late into this debate, but i would like to ask this question (which was likely asked in one of the previous pages, but I don't have several hours to search through them) Are you stating that it is better to have a same sex couple who don't give a chit about each other or their children then to have a loving family which consists of two people of the same sex?
No, Greenlander is stating that homosexual couples should not be allowed to marry at all.

So, is your argument that we should allow SSM so that all the orphans in America will be adopted by them? That's the first time I ever heard that, perhaps I'll reconsider, you did verify that they plan on putting this stipulation of SSM licenses right? That they will all adopt a child each? ... :rolleyes:

Sure, right after they put a stipulation in traditional marriage licenses that the heterosexual couple will either bear and raise a child or if incapable adopt one.

oh, I came late into this debate, but i would like to ask this question (which was likely asked in one of the previous pages, but I don't have several hours to search through them) Are you stating that it is better to have a same sex couple who don't give a chit about each other or their children then to have a loving family which consists of two people of the same sex? I'm just asking because my heterosexual married parents treated me like a piece dog shit that won't come off of their shoe, and really should not have been allowed around children, and I know same sex couples (yay for Canada!) who are very caring, and would make wonderful parents. And finally, I ask you this: How many same sex couples do you know? Or, are you simply making judgements about a rather large group of people based on the propaganda fed to you by your church?

I'm not judging them as couples at all. I'm juding them by the fact that they are incapable of giving a child 'both' gender role examples in a home.

This difference provides an important diversity of experiences for children. Fathers have a distinct style of communication and interaction with children. Infants, by 8 weeks, can tell the difference between a male or female interacting with them. Stanford psychologist Eleanor Maccoby, in her book The Two Sexes, explains mothers and fathers respond differently to infants.

Mothers are more likely to provide warm, nurturing care for a crying infant. This diversity in itself provides children with a broader, richer experience of contrasting relational interactions ~ more so than for children who are raised by only one gender. Whether they realize it or not, children are learning at earliest age, by sheer experience, that men and women are different and have different ways of dealing with life, other adults and their children.

Why should you care about the attack on the modern day ‘so-called’ traditional family?

< Mega-snip >
First let me say that I am very pro-family, having helped raise five children and now having seven grandchildren ( so far ).

Having said that, let me state that I am not in favor of this amendment. There are a variety of reasons why, but basically they boil down to two:

1. The human race is constantly changing and evolving. Anything which locks us into what is essentially a time and place-specific cultural pattern automatically limits us.

2. Compassion is a prerequisite for any society which is truly "great" or which hopes to become so. Excluding any group of people from participation in the ongoing processes of society is anything but compassionate.

I'm not judging them as couples at all. I'm juding them by the fact that they are incapable of giving a child 'both' gender role examples in a home.

I think this is something of a change of tack, but then again you've changed your methodology so many times in the last few hundred posts I'm beginning to loose tack.

Exactly what gender roles are you refering to?

*snip*

In the same way that an Amendment can be passed by the society, it can later be revoked in the same way, prohibition comes to mind. What it does do is takes the issue out of the hands of the federal courts. If the court determines the issue ONLY the court can over-rule itself.

In the same way that an Amendment can be passed by the society, it can later be revoked in the same way, prohibition comes to mind. What it does do is takes the issue out of the hands of the federal courts. If the court determines the issue ONLY the court can over-rule itself.
Courts can be over-ruled by amendment, and sometimes by legislation short of amendments to the Constitution.

One of the problems with constitutional amendments which effectively "lock in" existing cultural patterns is that they give those patterns the force of the "law of the land." This tends to perpetuate the general acceptance of these time and place-specific patterns, thus making it less likely the amendments will be repealed. It's no accident that only one amendment to the Constitution was subsequently repealed ( prohibition ).

Amendments to the Constitution should never be made lightly or in the heat of emotion. I, for one, am exceedingly glad that amending the Constitution is a most difficult task indeed.

Courts can be over-ruled by amendment, and sometimes by legislation short of amendments to the Constitution.

One of the problems with constitutional amendments which effectively "lock in" existing cultural patterns is that they give those patterns the force of the "law of the land." This tends to perpetuate the general acceptance of these time and place-specific patterns, thus making it less likely the amendments will be repealed. It's no accident that only one amendment to the Constitution was subsequently repealed ( prohibition ).

Amendments to the Constitution should never be made lightly or in the heat of emotion. I, for one, am exceedingly glad that amending the Constitution is a most difficult task indeed.

I agree, it is not to be taken lightly. And I agree that it should continue to be the hardest thing to pass... I support this amendment.

I agree, it is not to be taken lightly. And I agree that it should continue to be the hardest thing to pass... I support this amendment.
Yes. I gathered that. :)

How exactly do you pronounce that first word?
e-yurg.

Well, right no SSMs are not allowed. Pray tell me, Greenlander, do families fare well nowadays?

Well the slippery slope can go the other way too.

First it is that children shold be in families that only have one man and woman parent couplings. Next it will be that only whites should parent white children. Then it will be only those who are rich enough to have a bachelor's or a master's should have children. While we are at it, if you are deaf or blind, you should not have children, especially "normal" children. Children without disabilities should be raised by a "normal" man and woman couple...

Long thread, so I'm sure some one's mentioned this, but I thought I'd just point out that gays who want to marry have no problem with straight marriages whatsoever. No one is proposing mandatory gay marriage or banning straight marriage or any of the sort. Straight marriages will be just fine when everyone has the same rights.

I think this is something of a change of tack, but then again you've changed your methodology so many times in the last few hundred posts I'm beginning to loose tack.

Exactly what gender roles are you refering to?

The ones that they think an 8 week old can detect...

Well, right no SSMs are not allowed. Pray tell me, Greenlander, do families fare well nowadays?


I pointed out several issues in the first post, not just SSM. Only that SSM is the headed in the wrong direction, in the direction of more speculative experimentation on n our children without the proper research being done first. SS couples have not yet been around long enough for us to be able to verify the validity of the gay-marriage movement hypothesizes in it’s claims that all is well. But the truth is that we do not know if the children raised in this type of household is going to do well or not, they haven’t been around long enough to make that determination yet.

Are they going to not just survive but succeed, to persevere through human toughness or flourish and bloom?

We have no reason to speculate that they are living in a condition that is anything but children in/from broken families or single parent households, and that would not be good, because these groups are known to suffer problems...

To take the leap, a leap of faith that would have us assume that, 'kids are tough, they'll be fine,' so it's okay to allow SSM now damn the consequences, is really half-hazard and irresponsible.

The ones that they think an 8 week old can detect...

Great so this is about gender and not sex. SSM it is then.

Well the slippery slope can go the other way too.

First it is that children shold be in families that only have one man and woman parent couplings. Next it will be that only whites should parent white children. Then it will be only those who are rich enough to have a bachelor's or a master's should have children. While we are at it, if you are deaf or blind, you should not have children, especially "normal" children. Children without disabilities should be raised by a "normal" man and woman couple...

You exaggerated for prose, but honestly, if we dictated set rule of 6 months of marriage counseling before granting a marriage license and another 6 months of child rearing courses (concurrently I don’t care), before ‘blessing’ a couple with the all desired benefits and tax-breaks that comes from a public civil marriage license, I wouldn’t object.

Great so this is about gender and not sex. SSM it is then.

You think your little female~brain in a man's body and male's brain in a female's body trick of words is going to pan out don’t you?

You think your little female~brain in a man's body and male's brain in a female's body trick of words is going to pan out don’t you?

Um, no. I think that I'll take the word of sociologist and biologists over you, if you don't mind. I like my opinions to be educated. I'm weird like that. You should try it.

Um, no. I think that I'll take the word of sociologist and biologists over you, if you don't mind. I like my opinions to be educated. I'm weird like that. You should try it.


Hmmm, What do you claim about bi-sexual then? Split personality, schizophrenia disorder? Or do you claim that they can’t actually ‘really’ be attracted to and enjoy sex with both men and women? You think they are lying or something?





~ Of course, I've read at least a few other theories about sexual orientation (in women at least) and what might cause it:

Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is the most common cause of ovarian dysfunction in women and is caused by an imbalance of sex hormones. One of the main features of PCOS is hyperandrogenism,2 and now that the researchers have discovered the increased prevalence of PCOS amongst lesbian women they hypothesize that hyperandrogenism could be contributing to the women's sexual orientation.


http://www.docguide.com/news/content.nsf/news/8525697700573E1885256D55004E57FD?OpenDocument&id=48DDE4A73E09A969852568880078C249&c=Ob/Gyn%20Other&count=10

I think your theory might be challenged by more than just me...

The problem with genetic sciences IS, that they will be able to do that stuff. People already have the ability to find out what gender the fetus is while it's still legal to get an abortion...

What do you think is going to happen next?

~~~
They are already trying to test fetuses for all kinds of genetic defects now, hair color, eye color, gender and sexual tendencies will all be a part of it (eventually).

If you are the mother, you will want them to be as happy and healthy as they can be. If you want to push your political agenda by purposely forming babies to fit that agenda, then you have a problem.


As for myself, I say we treat for health and illegalize abortion so that society doesn't fall into genetic social engineering... but that's just me I guess.


Bullshit on that last sentence. You've already SAID you want to do genetic social engineering to "FIX" gay people's "BROKEN" brains. Check.

Bullshit on that last sentence. You've already SAID you want to do genetic social engineering to "FIX" gay people's "BROKEN" brains. Check.


So what did I say now that makes you think it 'can't' be fixed?



http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/180/5/389?ijkey=9129906b7c868b96700009d003f0cfb933e3406b&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

~The major finding from animal research is that the link between antenatal stress and impaired behavioural adjustment/emotional reactivity in the offspring is remarkably robust, and these effects continue into adulthood (Weinstock, 2001). The disturbances in offspring that are linked to antenatal stress are broad in nature, and extend well beyond just behavioural disturbance/emotional reactivity to include cognitive and neurological development and atypical sexual behaviour.

~Analyses from the ALSPAC cohort also found evidence of a link between antenatal anxiety and neurological development. High maternal anxiety at 18 weeks' gestation predicted atypical laterality (i.e. mixed handedness) in the child (further details available from the author upon request), independently of maternal and paternal handedness and obstetric and other antenatal risks. No association was found with postnatal anxiety, indicating that maternal anxiety had qualitatively different effects on child handedness in the antenatal and postnatal periods. An association between antenatal anxiety and mixed handedness in the child was also found in a Danish cohort (C. Obel et al, personal communication, 2002). If antenatal anxiety is causally associated with mixed handedness, then it could have a role in other disorders associated with mixed handedness that have a neurodevelopmental component, such as dyslexia and autism.

http://www.docguide.com/news/content.nsf/PaperFrameSet?OpenForm&refid=2&id=48DDE4A73E09A969852568880078C249&c=&newsid=8525697700573E1885256D14002F51B9&u=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12710825&dopt=Abstract&ref=/news/content.nsf/SearchResults?openform&Query=homosexual%20&so=date&start=50&id=48DDE4A73E09A969852568880078C249

~ Homosexual men had 82% greater odds of being non-right-handed than heterosexual men, a statistically significant difference …

~ Rates of non-right-handedness were virtually identical for heterosexual men and women, suggesting that sex differences in handedness may result from higher rates of homosexuality in men.

I don't mean to make it sound like it's going to be easy, but I don't see why this sort of stuff can't be fixed, then we will take a reassessment and see where we are at... Perhaps we should get those groups of researchers together, huh? Of course, they would already be talking together if some political groups around the world weren't so adamant about NOT allowing other groups (like doctors and researchers) to be able to 'treat' an illness that isn't supposed to be an illness.

Sixty-one pages, folks. Sixty-one pages worth of arguing with someone you know will never see things your way. That's twelve days, btw.

*sighs*

I think it's come the time to (figuratively) muscle up the courage to pick up that ol' family huntin' rifle, head on out there behind the barn, and blow poor Ol' Yellers' brains out of his poor foaming-mouthed head.

Let it die, people. Let it die...

Hmmm, What do you claim about bi-sexual then? Split personality, schizophrenia disorder? Or do you claim that they can’t actually ‘really’ be attracted to and enjoy sex with both men and women? You think they are lying or something?

You're so ignorant of biology, it's a little depressing. Sexuality is a spectrum. Most spectrums have a bell curve but this curve has two humps. Most people fall into the realm of mostly heterosexual or mostly homosexual. In the very center of the two humps (meaning a small amount of people) you have bisexuality. Do you have a better explanation that doesn't contradict a few decades of biology?

~ Of course, I've read at least a few other theories about sexual orientation (in women at least) and what might cause it:

Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is the most common cause of ovarian dysfunction in women and is caused by an imbalance of sex hormones. One of the main features of PCOS is hyperandrogenism,2 and now that the researchers have discovered the increased prevalence of PCOS amongst lesbian women they hypothesize that hyperandrogenism could be contributing to the women's sexual orientation.

As I've pointed out, in extreme cases the difference in the brain development causes the body to behave in a way that is hormonally abnormal. You know what that means there, biologist, that hyperandrogenism would be expected. It may very well be contributing to sexuality or the sexuality may be contributing the syndrome. They aren't challenging 'my theory'. They are supporting it. Perhaps you better head back to the lab.

SS couples have not yet been around long enough for us to be able to verify the validity of the gay-marriage movement hypothesizes in it’s claims that all is well.

They haven't been around long enough? Can you perhaps tell me when these couples were 'invented'? Or maybe you're aware they've been around for pretty much all of recorded history.

So what did I say now that makes you think it 'can't' be fixed?



http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/180/5/389?ijkey=9129906b7c868b96700009d003f0cfb933e3406b&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

~The major finding from animal research is that the link between antenatal stress and impaired behavioural adjustment/emotional reactivity in the offspring is remarkably robust, and these effects continue into adulthood (Weinstock, 2001). The disturbances in offspring that are linked to antenatal stress are broad in nature, and extend well beyond just behavioural disturbance/emotional reactivity to include cognitive and neurological development and atypical sexual behaviour.

~Analyses from the ALSPAC cohort also found evidence of a link between antenatal anxiety and neurological development. High maternal anxiety at 18 weeks' gestation predicted atypical laterality (i.e. mixed handedness) in the child (further details available from the author upon request), independently of maternal and paternal handedness and obstetric and other antenatal risks. No association was found with postnatal anxiety, indicating that maternal anxiety had qualitatively different effects on child handedness in the antenatal and postnatal periods. An association between antenatal anxiety and mixed handedness in the child was also found in a Danish cohort (C. Obel et al, personal communication, 2002). If antenatal anxiety is causally associated with mixed handedness, then it could have a role in other disorders associated with mixed handedness that have a neurodevelopmental component, such as dyslexia and autism.

http://www.docguide.com/news/content.nsf/PaperFrameSet?OpenForm&refid=2&id=48DDE4A73E09A969852568880078C249&c=&newsid=8525697700573E1885256D14002F51B9&u=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12710825&dopt=Abstract&ref=/news/content.nsf/SearchResults?openform&Query=homosexual%20&so=date&start=50&id=48DDE4A73E09A969852568880078C249

~ Homosexual men had 82% greater odds of being non-right-handed than heterosexual men, a statistically significant difference …

~ Rates of non-right-handedness were virtually identical for heterosexual men and women, suggesting that sex differences in handedness may result from higher rates of homosexuality in men.

I don't mean to make it sound like it's going to be easy, but I don't see why this sort of stuff can't be fixed, then we will take a reassessment and see where we are at... Perhaps we should get those groups of researchers together, huh? Of course, they would already be talking together if some political groups around the world weren't so adamant about NOT allowing other groups (like doctors and researchers) to be able to 'treat' an illness that isn't supposed to be an illness.

Um, did you notice that you claimed 'my theory' was debunked and then cited a(nother) study that agrees with it? Antenatal - during gestation. Neurological development - development of the brain. In other words, atypical sexual behavior is caused by development of the brain in the womb. I don't entirely agree with some of their findings, however, in a previous post you just tried to suggest this kind of evidence is ridiculous. Which is it?

They haven't been around long enough? Can you perhaps tell me when these couples were 'invented'? Or maybe you're aware they've been around for pretty much all of recorded history.


Show me their produced progeny then? The American movement toward acceptance of homosexual behavior as anything other than a mental illness started in 1973.

You show us the survey results of the children that have been raised in SS household since 1973 and we'll talk. Let’s see how they are comparing to their peers in overall success factors…

Um, did you notice that you claimed 'my theory' was debunked and then cited a(nother) study that agrees with it? Antenatal - during gestation. Neurological development - development of the brain. In other words, atypical sexual behavior is caused by development of the brain in the womb. I don't entirely agree with some of their findings, however, in a previous post you just tried to suggest this kind of evidence is ridiculous. Which is it?

Actually, as someone else just brought back (on the very last page of posts :rolleyes: ) that I said we would be able to test and fix and heal homosexuality in the womb and the problem will go away anyway...

So what was your point again? That I was right?

Show me their produced progeny then? The American movement toward acceptance of homosexual behavior as anything other than a mental illness started in 1973.

You show us the survey results of the children that have been raised in SS household since 1973 and we'll talk. Let’s see how they are comparing to their peers in overall success factors…

So your point isn't that SS couples haven't been around long enough (as you stated it) but that it was only recently that science replaced bigotry on the subject. Well, at least, in most people. As long as you can admit that's the case.

Actually, as someone else just brought back (on the very last page of posts :rolleyes: ) that I said we would be able to test and fix and heal homosexuality in the womb and the problem will go away anyway...

So what was your point again? That I was right?

How can you be right when you contradict yourself? You post one study and claim it says neurological development in the woman does not cause homosexuality and then you post another that says it does. You can't just choose whatever argument suits you at the time. Consistency, my friend, consistency. For the record, those two studies don't disagree with each other, only your assessment disagrees. Both of those studies agree with me.

As far as being able to engineer it out of children, you are likely correct, assuming we throw away all of our ethics and decide to engineer children.

How can you be right when you contradict yourself? You post one study and claim it says neurological development in the woman does not cause homosexuality and then you post another that says it does. You can't just choose whatever argument suits you at the time. Consistency, my friend, consistency. For the record, those two studies don't disagree with each other, only your assessment disagrees. Both of those studies agree with me.

As far as being able to engineer it out of children, you are likely correct, assuming we throw away all of our ethics and decide to engineer children.

Interesting observation and this does conflict with his very broad redefinition of the word "choice" somewhere earlier on as does most of the drivel he's posted clearly ripped from a "pro-family" web resource. Some of the studies he cited (the one psych study by the University of Vermont in particular) seems to be focused on a statistic with mitigating factors rather than the conclusions, and after reading an article by the two professors I find it strange he'd use their work to support his POV.

Greenlander=waste of bandwidth. Should be banned for spamming but ignore feature is good 'nuff.

Interesting observation and this does conflict with his very broad redefinition of the word "choice" somewhere earlier on as does most of the drivel he's posted clearly ripped from a "pro-family" web resource. Some of the studies he cited (the one psych study by the University of Vermont in particular) seems to be focused on a statistic with mitigating factors rather than the conclusions, and after reading an article by the two professors I find it strange he'd use their work to support his POV.

Greenlander=waste of bandwidth. Should be banned for spamming but ignore feature is good 'nuff.

So far he has posted two sources proving it's not a choice (even though he often claims it is) and a source much earlier in the thread that says that children suffer when they are raised in a family where the adults are transient (in other words, same-sex marriage would benefit the children that would be a part of these unions). I don't think he critically reads his sources and figures out the implications of the post. He also tends to post studies and then tell you take it up with the authors of the study when you discover their conclusions can't be drawn from the data. He's a master-debater, that one. My favorite one was when he compared the length of average heterosexual marriages to ALL same-sex relationships. I used to think he's intentionally misleading, but now I think he honestly doesn't understand the flaw in that kind of thinking.

We have no reason to speculate that they are living in a condition that is anything but children in/from broken families or single parent households, and that would not be good, because these groups are known to suffer problems...
Emphasis mine.
So you just think that growing up in a family composed of two partners of the same sex is the equivalent to being socialised in defunct families. You have no hard facts but simply assume? Well, then it is of no use to discuss with you, since you do not accept evidence that shows that children growing up in functional SSMs fare better than those in non-functional heterosexual ones. By equating those without the faintest trace of evidence you show ignorance, contempt and cantankerousness, but not discussion skills.

Show me their produced progeny then? The American movement toward acceptance of homosexual behavior as anything other than a mental illness started in 1973.

You show us the survey results of the children that have been raised in SS household since 1973 and we'll talk. Let’s see how they are comparing to their peers in overall success factors…

Gay liberation started in 1969, not 1973.

There is plenty of record of same-sex couples, including some with children, dating back for thousands of years before that.

Gay liberation started in 1969, not 1973.

There is plenty of record of same-sex couples, including some with children, dating back for thousands of years before that.


First part, I was referring to the APA's board vote in 1973.

Then, the second comment, I wasn't talking about their being gays themselves in existence for thousands of years, of course there was. What I asked was, where is the group, the survey-able, measurable, grown up children, the group of children raised in same-sex homes (whether they are or are not gay is not the issue), where is this group? Why aren’t they speaking up now and being censored, so that we can see the statistical results of raising children by only mothers, or only fathers. The truth is, they don’t really exist as a group yet. Not as a measurable group anyway. Individuals here and there, but the ‘group’ as a whole are not old enough to give us answers to our questions yet

Individuals here and there, but the ‘group’ as a whole are not old enough to give us answers to our questions yet

Well, why don't you get out from behind your computer and start knocking on a few doors, then?

And who's 'us' supposed to be, anyway? And why do you feel the need to interpose yourself and your questions into people's personal lives? What entitles you personally to know item one about people's families? And finally -

Why can't you just leave honest, hardworking people to their own devices - and trust that they'll work out whatever kind of arrangement they need or are comfortable with, not just assume the worst of everybody? How about that?

How about after sixty-one pages of this extended paranoiac rant, you give us all a break? We all know what you're all about, now. Thanks, it's been great. I'll be sure to remember who to call on the next time I feel masochistic.

Other than that, what? You got anything to add? Elucidate upon? Describe in greater detail? Compare and contrast? Anything left to allude to, anyone to paraphrase? To quote?

'Cause all I see is the same-old, same-old, day after day after day.

Pfffffffft.

Okay then, it looks like we can finally move past the SSM issues of Defending the Family and back onto the ‘overall’ family and children issues, Lets’ really think about some radical policy changes here…

A preview of where we are at, in the children family life in America:

ANF (Assessing the New Federalism, an Urban Institute( * link below) found that many elementary school–age children are taking care of themselves without adult supervision.

In 1999, about 3.3 million children age 6 to 12 regularly spent time in “self-care,” alone or with another sibling under age 13. This represents 15 percent of all 6- to 12-year-olds. Among those children left alone, 16 percent spent more than 10 hours a week unsupervised. Apart from potential dangers to young children when regularly left alone, self-care may represent a missed opportunity for low-income children to participate in more enriching activities.

For working parent (s) Arranging childcare intensifies during the summer months for families with school-age children. Many families rely largely on summer programs and relatives to care for children. Among younger children and low-income children, the percentage of those caring for themselves changes little from the school year to the summer, but the time spent in self-care becomes much longer—10.3 hours a week during the summer compared with 4.8 hours a week during the school year.

Fear of losing the topic point again here, but it’s necessary to the discussion, the 2002 NSAF data reaffirm the conclusion that, on average, children living with their two married biological or adopted parents do best. Children living with married parents—whether biological or step—experience the least material hardship. Yet, living with both biological parents— whether married or not—is associated with a lower incidence of behavior problems among school-age children and teens compared with children in other circumstances.

With this in mind, it seem essential that we as a society (and government by definition) has a compelling interest in trying to ‘force’ father’s to come forward and assist the single mothers and cohabitating mother’s (as the case may be) in the endeavor of raising these children.

And because paternity case can and do exist, and people once claiming to be parents are in fact not, and others who initially deny and later are found to be the parent of newborns, I find it unacceptable that we do not have compulsory paternity testing as a mater of birth certification.

http://www.urban.org/ANF_EightYearsLater/ANF_EightYearsLater.pdf

I contend that it is utterly obvious that even as hard as this situation is on dual working parent homes, single parent homes have it even harder. Requiring more assistance and public funds in the process, increasing the governments incentive to alleviate this dilemma.

There is a growing body of research that suggests that child support enforcement has positive effects on family formation and stability. States with stronger child support enforcement programs have lower non-marital birth rates and lower divorce rates than states where child support is not as effective.

• By raising the cost of fatherhood to unmarried men, effective paternity establishment and child support enforcement deter non-marital births.

• States with stricter child support enforcement regimes have lower rates of divorce among families with children. The effect is especially strong for couples in which the wife is likely to become a welfare recipient should divorce occur.

I know some of you will find this hard to ignore, or believe, but this post is not about SS couples with children, which in the end, is really something less than 1% of all the households that today’s American children are being raised in. ~ This post is about the idea that we should implement mandatory paternity testing across the country to both force and shame the fathers of these children into coming forward and participating in the raising of their children. That child support, marriage, and father involvement are all things that should be desired and the society as a whole has forgotten and moved away from.

MAM v. State of Wyoming, Dept. of Family Services, 99 P.3d 982 (Wyo. 2004) is a case in which the parents voluntarily waived a hearing and genetic testing. The court then entered an order adjudicating parentage. When the child was about two years old, the mother revealed that there was another possible father and genetic tests established that he—rather than the adjudicated father—was the child’s biological parent. The Wyoming Supreme Court found that the adjudicated father could move to vacate the judgment, and the motion should have been granted. In its ruling, the court noted that the record did not establish that the man had been informed of his right to genetic testing, and thus, he did not make a knowing waiver of his rights.

In contrast, on a very similar set of basic facts, the New Jersey Supreme Court found that the father could not disestablish his paternity. FB v. ALG, 821 A. 2d 1157 (N.J. 2003). What distinguishes these two cases is that in the former, the adjudicated father had no contact with the child, while in the latter, the adjudicated father had a long-standing, close relationship with the child. In addition, in the Wyoming case, the biological father was available for suit, while in the New Jersey, there was no biological father in the picture.

Now, in my mind, these type of cases should ‘always’ be resolved in the best interest of the child. However, I recognize the overall unfairness of the wrongfully ‘fathered’ father, and thus, before any establishment of recognition by the child for the non-father takes place, a nationally compulsory genetic verification test of paternity for birth certificate validation would immediate end all cases like the above.

http://clasp.org/publications/paternity_update_061005.pdf

Any thoughts? Who’s with me :)

“Our emphasis is on healthy marriages ~ not marriage for the sake of marriage, not marriage at any cost ~ but healthy marriages that provide a strong and stable environment for raising children. It is about helping couples who choose marriage for themselves gain access to the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain healthy marriages.”

- Wade F. Horn, Ph.D.
U.S. Assistant Secretary of the Administration for Children and Families

What an odd epigraph for an essay in which you argue that marriage should be refused to plenty of healthy adults who would provide a strong and stable environment for raising children.

There are two pillars of the cultural value system ~ loyalty to family and loyalty to community.

First, I'm not at all sure these are the "two pillars" of today's cultural values system... when was the last time anyone felt much "loyalty to community"?

Bishop Gracias, in an interview on a more general note about the definition and future of the family recently reminded us of the importance of Family when he said. “The family has always been regarded as the basic cell of society and the Church. Even the ancients recognized its importance. They regarded it as the nursery of civilization, the workshop where character is formed, the garden where virtues are planted to bloom in later life.”

Well, I don't know who Bishop Gracias is... but I do know that his statement is blatantly false. Assuming "the ancients" include the Greeks, then he should know that the ancient Greeks made frequent attacks on the family as the place where selfishness and anti-communitarian spirit are learned. (Granted, this was bound up with their sexism, so modern liberals might not be impressed with the argument... Still, the fact is that the ancient Greeks -- to name just one civilization -- were hardly "pro-family.") Just look at the lengths to which Plato would go (in The Republic and other dialogues) to keep children away from family life!

Also, note that until extremely recently, the wealthiest classes were likely to have their children raised by nurse-maids and other servants. Until the twentieth-century, few upperclass Western children had much experience of "family" at all, outside of the employees hired by their parents. (So what, again, is the problem with day care???)

This has all, until very recently (recently in terms of society, community and social structure is concerned anyway), been the standard role for the family but it has been challenged and is currently being uprooted in some areas of our society.

This is a myth. In actual fact, it is only very recently that anyone has cared about the family at all.

In 1960 America, for example, 9% of all children lived in single parent homes. By 1990, that number had soared to 25%. Today, 33% of all American children are born into single- parent homes, a number that is still on the rise. In the African-American community that figure is an astronomical 68% in some areas.

And what we should take from this is that we should provide more assistance to single parents (and/or structure society so that it is not so economically difficult to raise children alone). There is simply no scientific evidence that growing up in a single-parent household (economic adversity aside) has any detrimental effect on children. (As an aside, many studies have shown that children who go to day care for some part of their day develop better social skills than children who stay at home, and deal better with peers when they enter the school environment.)

A real family is built on the union of one man and one woman in natural and moral sexual roles who provide love, nurture and protection to their children.

Based on what??? For how much of human history has "the family" really come down to "one man and one woman"? Hardly ever!!!

To teach, or allow, boys to be violent, for example, or to neglect to teach them anything at all by not giving them a female role-model during their formative years to watch and learn from, will obviously not lead to less violence against females.

Ahhh... so, this is some sort of bizarre permutation of Jungian thought, right? Well, at any rate there is no evidence to support this claim... What really matters is that children grow up in an accepting, not-too-authoritarian environment. (Kids whose parents "rule with an iron fist" tend to become racists, sexists, and bigots. Go figure.)

The results of social modification of what constitutes a ‘family’ will be the inevitable destruction of the family culture ~ the very fabric that has produced and sustained moral and peaceful human society for generations ~ to restrict or deny people the opportunity to being raised and brought up with the knowledge of both gender’s as a role model could and likely will be, catastrophic to society. The individuals raised without family nor influenced by both genders will not be able to be well-adjusted nor have a holistic view of humanity and society itself.

A nice theory... but there is no evidence to back it up. In fact, children draw their role models from well outside the bounds of family even in the most restrictive families. Unless you keep them in a box that only Mom and Dad are allowed to visit, they will meet plenty of other people -- of both genders.

The rest of your post is either redundant or utter nonsense, so I'll stop here.

Okay then, it looks like we can finally move past the SSM issues of Defending the Family and back onto the ‘overall’ family and children issues, Lets’ really think about some radical policy changes here…

Lets hear it: You surrender this point to us.

With this in mind, it seem essential that we as a society (and government by definition) has a compelling interest in trying to ‘force’ father’s to come forward and assist the single mothers and cohabitating mother’s (as the case may be) in the endeavor of raising these children.

This is the central theory and i am horrifed by the idea. Individuals are not servants of the society nor subjects of the government. Freedom is what the society tries to uphold and a society that forces its members to certain things out of the selfish reason of enduring self-preservation loses its purpose.
Let me use a hyperbole and my point of view becomes clear.
Partners must check for genetic deficiencies before mating. Socio-economic differences between families can lead to hardships for some children, so they must be abolished. What children eat must be regulated, because fat kids fare a lot worse than normally build ones. PhysEd has to become normed to a lowest common denominator, the guy picked last for a game might suffer a psychological trauma otherwise. We can not allow differences in clothing, the kids who do not wear brand clothing might be considered substandard, therefore mandatory uniforms will be introduced. Schools shall not single out children, neither as honor students not as failures. Families are bound together until the last child leaves the house, no matter how the feelings between the parents might be, they must supress them for the common good and the wellbeing of their children.

I would not want to live in a society that works this way, but it would sure be the best for the children. Unless they like freedom, that is.

There is a growing body of research that suggests that child support enforcement has positive effects on family formation and stability. States with stronger child support enforcement programs have lower non-marital birth rates and lower divorce rates than states where child support is not as effective.

• By raising the cost of fatherhood to unmarried men, effective paternity establishment and child support enforcement deter non-marital births.

• States with stricter child support enforcement regimes have lower rates of divorce among families with children. The effect is especially strong for couples in which the wife is likely to become a welfare recipient should divorce occur.
I happen to believe in strict child support laws for both non-custodial mothers or non-custodial fathers. It should be strictly enforced. However, you can't make assertions like the above without support. Would you care to show the studies that indicate these trends and that there is no other reasonable explanation for these trends other than the conclusion posted above.

First, I'm not at all sure these are the "two pillars" of today's cultural values system... when was the last time anyone felt much "loyalty to community"?

America just celebrated Independence day on July 4th, community loyalty and patriotism isn't that hard to imagine.

... the ancient Greeks made frequent attacks on the family as the place where selfishness and anti-communitarian spirit are learned. (Granted, this was bound up with their sexism, so modern liberals might not be impressed with the argument... Still, the fact is that the ancient Greeks -- to name just one civilization -- were hardly "pro-family.") Just look at the lengths to which Plato would go (in The Republic and other dialogues) to keep children away from family life!

It's exactly because they were pro family that Plato was attacking the institution of it, hoping that their prejudices would be removed if society raised children without parents (thinking that parents installed the family loyalty over community loyalty)... However, we now know, via the failure of institutional giant size orphanages, that Plato was wrong, it neither removed prejudices nor makes them better citizens when raised in an institution.

But even when looking at the multiple different types of social and government styles of the different types of Greek city-states, they were pro-family.


Also, note that until extremely recently, the wealthiest classes were likely to have their children raised by nurse-maids and other servants. Until the twentieth-century, few upperclass Western children had much experience of "family" at all, outside of the employees hired by their parents. (So what, again, is the problem with day care???)

Day-care can be a blessing, a benefit to the parents and the children, but it shouldn't be a substitute for family. The rich people example you cited is hardly relevant since rich people can afford many benefits that the rest of us can't, I can't mandate wealth. Plus, you failed to show how it was better for their children that way instead of just being better for them.

This is the central theory and i am horrifed by the idea. Individuals are not servants of the society nor subjects of the government. Freedom is what the society tries to uphold and a society that forces its members to certain things out of the selfish reason of enduring self-preservation loses its purpose.
Let me use a hyperbole and my point of view becomes clear.
Partners must check for genetic deficiencies before mating.

Although I agree that I don't want frivolous interference. We need to recognize that there is nothing wrong telling a couple, even if they don't ask, but so that they then know that they have an exceptionally high chance of producing a genetic defect (or some such thing) and that they need to take extraordinary precautions and/or avoid child bearing altogether.

Socio-economic differences between families can lead to hardships for some children, so they must be abolished.

I don't have a problem with the public funding poor schools and faculties as much as rich neighborhood schools get. The government should be blind to the wealth of the citizens when children are concerned... Unless to the benefit of the poor.

What children eat must be regulated, because fat kids fare a lot worse than normally build ones.

Not regulated per-se for being fat, but healthy. Food producing companies can be told that artificial colors and artificial flavors (for example) cannot be put in products designed for children (or anyone for that matter) across the board so that it's fair to all companies. That companies that sell 'crappy' foods with no nutritional value should have to pay an additional taxes to encourage them to produce more expensive but natural product foods... Lots of things like that would be more than fine in my book, I'm pushing for them already.

PhysEd has to become normed to a lowest common denominator, the guy picked last for a game might suffer a psychological trauma otherwise.

Although I'm for mandatory physical education during school years, I'm not against competition. (probably my capitalist theology coming through, that a little competition makes us all better, etc.)

We can not allow differences in clothing, the kids who do not wear brand clothing might be considered substandard, therefore mandatory uniforms will be introduced.

Not a problem with me. When kids start shooting each other for a pair of shoes...

Schools shall not single out children, neither as honor students not as failures.

As far as grades, I go with the competition thing, thinking it is a good and necessary thing. Being nice about it wouldn't hurt, but no reason to get rid of it.

Families are bound together until the last child leaves the house, no matter how the feelings between the parents might be, they must supress them for the common good and the wellbeing of their children.

Families are bound to the children ... divorce or no divorce, separation or no separation between the adults... You can't divorce your children, and if you do try to act like you have divorced them by abandonment or abuse etc., you should end up in jail (perhaps they should stay in confinement until the abandoned child reaches 18 :D )

I would not want to live in a society that works this way, but it would sure be the best for the children. Unless they like freedom, that is.

I think you and I aren't going to agree on too many things :p

There is a growing body of research that suggests that child support enforcement has positive effects on family formation and stability. States with stronger child support enforcement programs have lower non-marital birth rates and lower divorce rates than states where child support is not as effective.

• By raising the cost of fatherhood to unmarried men, effective paternity establishment and child support enforcement deter non-marital births.

• States with stricter child support enforcement regimes have lower rates of divorce among families with children. The effect is especially strong for couples in which the wife is likely to become a welfare recipient should divorce occur.

I happen to believe in strict child support laws for both non-custodial mothers or non-custodial fathers. It should be strictly enforced. However, you can't make assertions like the above without support. Would you care to show the studies that indicate these trends and that there is no other reasonable explanation for these trends other than the conclusion posted above.

When thinking of a 'solution to problem' we must be allowed to speculate and hypothesize and invent.

As to proving that a problem exists, I agree that speculation doesn't fit. I'll get back to you, I'll see if I can find out 'why' the Urban Institute says this is true...


:)

Although I agree that I don't want frivolous interference. We need to recognize that there is nothing wrong telling a couple, even if they don't ask, but so that they then know that they have an exceptionally high chance of producing a genetic defect (or some such thing) and that they need to take extraordinary precautions and/or avoid child bearing altogether.

I don't have a problem with the public funding poor schools and faculties as much as rich neighborhood schools get. The government should be blind to the wealth of the citizens when children are concerned... Unless to the benefit of the poor.

Not regulated per-se for being fat, but healthy. Food producing companies can be told that artificial colors and artificial flavors (for example) cannot be put in products designed for children (or anyone for that matter) across the board so that it's fair to all companies. That companies that sell 'crappy' foods with no nutritional value should have to pay an additional taxes to encourage them to produce more expensive but natural product foods... Lots of things like that would be more than fine in my book, I'm pushing for them already.

Although I'm for mandatory physical education during school years, I'm not against competition. (probably my capitalist theology coming through, that a little competition makes us all better, etc.)

Not a problem with me. When kids start shooting each other for a pair of shoes...

As far as grades, I go with the competition thing, thinking it is a good and necessary thing. Being nice about it wouldn't hurt, but no reason to get rid of it.

Families are bound to the children ... divorce or no divorce, separation or no separation between the adults... You can't divorce your children, and if you do try to act like you have divorced them by abandonment or abuse etc., you should end up in jail (perhaps they should stay in confinement until the abandoned child reaches 18 :D )

I think you and I aren't going to agree on too many things :p
His/her point wasn't that all of these things were good or bad. They were talking about the slope you are going down. When it becomes okay to infringe upon personal rights 'for the good of the children' then where does it stop? Can they decide that a particular parent has become too fat and by doing so has endanged their ability to live to see the child through to adulthood so they are kidnapped and placed into mandatory fat camp until they've gotten healthy enough to properly raise their children? This is the point he/she was trying to make. The fact that you agree with some of the policies is beside the point. He was asking "is it okay to remove all of these freedoms 'for the good of the children'?"

Oops, I left that out didn't I :D :p

Here it is, current form:

"SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

OK ill buy that IF:
"section 2. Partnership in (wherever) shall be legally recognised as the union of any two persons, who are of legal age, and consenting.

His/her point wasn't that all of these things were good or bad. They were talking about the slope you are going down. When it becomes okay to infringe upon personal rights 'for the good of the children' then where does it stop? Can they decide that a particular parent has become too fat and by doing so has endanged their ability to live to see the child through to adulthood so they are kidnapped and placed into mandatory fat camp until they've gotten healthy enough to properly raise their children? This is the point he/she was trying to make. The fact that you agree with some of the policies is beside the point. He was asking "is it okay to remove all of these freedoms 'for the good of the children'?"

I understand what their point was, and I think they think those things on their list is already going too far, whereas, I think they are mostly just fine...

Now, onto your question.

I don’t know what (if anything) there is that we can do about people and their unhealthy habits, but what if it is reversed and they bring their bad habits out in the children?

Hypothetical: What about the mother that allows her son to get so over-weight that one morning when he tries to get out of bed, he falls down and can't get himself up. That he is literally held down by his own mass. That at the time of falling, he's a five hundred pound fourteen year old. And then, while he is on the floor of his own bedroom, unable to stand or move even back onto his bed, over the next 4 week, he actually GAINS fifty more pounds :eek: WTH is his mother doing feeding him so much food that he's STILL gaining weight on the floor at the foot of his bed! It's not like he can cheat on his diet without her assisting him...


Not hypothetical: Marlene Corrigan had faced felony misconduct charges in connection with the death of her daughter Christina. But a California judge found Corrigan guilty of the less severe misdemeanor offense on the grounds that passive rather than active misconduct helped trigger Christina's death.
Christina died Nov. 19, 1996, at her home in El Cerrito, about 20 miles northeast of San Francisco. Authorities found the girl's body dotted with bedsores and lying amid feces, urine and empty food containers.
A medical examiner concluded Christina died of congestive heart failure due to "morbid obesity," and Contra Costa County prosecutors later charged Corrigan with child abuse.
Corrigan could have faced six years in prison if convicted of the felony child abuse charge, but Judge Richard Arnason's ruling means she will face at most a year in jail and will have to perform community service. Corrigan's sentencing hearing was scheduled for February 27 1997

What about smoking? About smoking in the home? Narcotic drug use in the home? In front of the children, or perhaps, while parent is intoxicated on drugs (or alcohol for that matter) and something happens to a child under their care and they are unable to respond due to their condition?

IMO: Society has a right to interfere for the physical protection of the child... Where does it end? I don't know, that's what we are discussing now.

I understand what their point was, and I think they think those things on their list is already going too far, whereas, I think they are mostly just fine...

Now, onto your question.

I don’t know what (if anything) there is that we can do about people and their unhealthy habits, but what if it is reversed and they bring their bad habits out in the children?

Hypothetical: What about the mother that allows her son to get so over-weight that one morning when he tries to get out of bed, he falls down and can't get himself up. That he is literally held down by his own mass. That at the time of falling, he's a five hundred pound fourteen year old. And then, while he is on the floor of his own bedroom, unable to stand or move even back onto his bed, over the next 4 week, he actually GAINS fifty more pounds :eek: WTH is his mother doing feeding him so much food that he's STILL gaining weight on the floor at the foot of his bed! It's not like he can cheat on his diet without her assisting him...

[indent] Marlene Corrigan had faced felony misconduct charges in connection with the death of her daughter Christina. But a California judge found Corrigan guilty of the less severe misdemeanor offense on the grounds that passive rather than active misconduct helped trigger Christina's death.
Christina died Nov. 19, 1996, at her home in El Cerrito, about 20 miles northeast of San Francisco. Authorities found the girl's body dotted with bedsores and lying amid feces, urine and empty food containers.
A medical examiner concluded Christina died of congestive heart failure due to "morbid obesity," and Contra Costa County prosecutors later charged Corrigan with child abuse.
Corrigan could have faced six years in prison if convicted of the felony child abuse charge, but Judge Richard Arnason's ruling means she will face at most a year in jail and will have to perform community service. Corrigan's sentencing hearing was scheduled for February 27 1997

What about smoking? About smoking in the home? Narcotic drug use in the home? In front of the children, or perhaps, while parent is intoxicated on drugs (or alcohol for that matter) and something happens to a child under their care and they are unable to respond due to their condition?

IMO: Society has a right to interfere for the physical protection of the child... Where does it end? I don't know, that's what we are discussing now.

It ends and rightfully so with the minimum necessary interference. As we've continually restated in the thread the government may abridge civil rights only when there is a compelling and proven interest and that abridgement MUST be narrowly tailored to address that interest. In the case that you're talking about the government would intercede, but passing a law suggesting that it could always intercede is not likely, and is not likely constitution. Cases for child abuse or neglect, like the one mentioned above, are taken on a case by case basis.

If you understood his post, you didn't adequately reply to it. You independently suggested you agreed with the actions he suggested the state could do, but you didn't answer the question. You still haven't adequately answered the question.

Let me ask you this. What if a peer-reviewed study shows that children brought up in Christian households are more likely to be guilty of hate crimes, more likely to intolerant of people who belong to other religions or no religion, more likely to be intolerant of 'alternative lifestyles', more likely to be involved with white power groups, etc? Would you accept that religion could be taken from the home 'to protect the children'? It's all well and good that you accept an abridgement of rights when you agree with it, but it's highly unlikely that you'll be making the decisions.

If you understood his post, you didn't adequately reply to it. You independently suggested you agreed with the actions he suggested the state could do, but you didn't answer the question. You still haven't adequately answered the question.

I thought it was pretty obvious that I essentially said I disagree, as I said on the bottom, I think you and I aren't going to agree on too many things because I think that they and I have fundemental differences... But instead of just coming and saying, that, I broke it down and tried to show 'why' I dissagree.

Let me ask you this. What if a peer-reviewed study shows that children brought up in Christian households are more likely to be guilty of hate crimes, more likely to intolerant of people who belong to other religions or no religion, more likely to be intolerant of 'alternative lifestyles', more likely to be involved with white power groups, etc? Would you accept that religion could be taken from the home 'to protect the children'? It's all well and good that you accept an abridgement of rights when you agree with it, but it's highly unlikely that you'll be making the decisions.

To take what you say in whole, as a single entity, I would have to say that everything evolves around only the very first part, the 'hate' crimes' part.

I agree that if children are being raised to be anti-community, anti-country, and a danger to other citizens, then yes, the government has a right to interfere. Such as, raising a suicide bomber cult, or indoctrinating spies for another country etc., would be a crime along the lines of generations...

However, your saying everything after that is, something is true and it being true are two different things. Such as (besides being modified by me ~ took out hate-crimes because they were addressed above);

What if a peer-reviewed study shows that African-American children brought up in southern Baptist households are more likely to be intolerant of people who belong to other religions or no religion, more likely to be intolerant of 'alternative lifestyles', more likely to be involved with African American Pride groups, etc? Would you accept that religion could be taken from the home 'to protect the children'?

No, I would not. Take out the harm to others, and nothing else there was really bad, it is opinion.

I thought it was pretty obvious that I essentially said I disagree, as I said on the bottom, I think you and I aren't going to agree on too many things because I think that they and I have fundemental differences... But instead of just coming and saying, that, I broke it down and tried to show 'why' I dissagree.



To take what you say in whole, as a single entity, I would have to say that everything evolves around only the very first part, the 'hate' crimes' part.

I agree that if children are being raised to be anti-community, anti-country, and a danger to other citizens, then yes, the government has a right to interfere. Such as, raising a suicide bomber cult, or indoctrinating spies for another country etc., would be a crime along the lines of generations...

However, your saying everything after that is, something is true and it being true are two different things. Such as (besides being modified by me ~ took out hate-crimes because they were addressed above);

What if a peer-reviewed study shows that African-American children brought up in southern Baptist households are more likely to be intolerant of people who belong to other religions or no religion, more likely to be intolerant of 'alternative lifestyles', more likely to be involved with African American Pride groups, etc? Would you accept that religion could be taken from the home 'to protect the children'?

No, I would not. Take out the harm to others, and nothing else there was really bad, it is opinion.

All of your points are opinion as well. Who can state that objectively a family is better off with a lack of liberty versus having overweight children for example? What about me? I'm an adult. Shouldn't I be allowed to ingest food with food dye number 7 if I like? Your 'sin' taxes for poorly made foods are social engineering and I'm not interested in it.

Think of the children is no excuse for an authoritarian government. You say you are willing to let them step in when you agree with them and not when you don't, but you don't have that power. The rest of us understand that if you allow the government to expand in this way that it is very difficult to control. You don't tell a government, "hey, abridge our rights if you think it's best for us." You think it's a good idea now because you think the conservative Christians will have the power to control it. I promise you, they won't.

EDIT: Your comparison of White Power groups to black pride groups is telling. A more accurate comparison would be Black Power groups that advocate civil war and killing whitey.

All of your points are opinion as well. Who can state that objectively a family is better off with a lack of liberty versus having overweight children for example? What about me? I'm an adult. Shouldn't I be allowed to ingest food with food dye number 7 if I like? Your 'sin' taxes for poorly made foods are social engineering and I'm not interested in it.

Compare that to smoking in public. We don't let individuals poison everyone around them anymore, why should we allow the corporations to poison our food with non-food additives?

Think of the children is no excuse for an authoritarian government. You say you are willing to let them step in when you agree with them and not when you don't, but you don't have that power. The rest of us understand that if you allow the government to expand in this way that it is very difficult to control. You don't tell a government, "hey, abridge our rights if you think it's best for us."

We do it all the time, we do it with different names, we allow and expect the government to have an effective Food and Drug Administration, we demand and expect the government to have good and effective USDA meat and food quality inspections, we demand and expect clean quality water from the tap, we demand and expect effective EPA emissions testing of the factories around us...

How far we go and to what extreme is open to discussion and public opinion, and finally, our vote.

Do we let them invade our homes? Yes, and we should (to a point). If we didn't let them in at all it wouldn't be against the law to beat your wife and kids... Ignorance that they are in danger is no reason not to outlaw lead paint.


You think it's a good idea now because you think the conservative Christians will have the power to control it.

:rolleyes:

EDIT: Your comparison of White Power groups to black pride groups is telling. A more accurate comparison would be Black Power groups that advocate civil war and killing whitey.

I surveyed the four people in the office and we voted, you're wrong, that wasn't racist by unanimous vote (FYI - 1/2 members of office are African American single mothers )...

Compare that to smoking in public. We don't let individuals poison everyone around them anymore, why should we allow the corporations to poison our food with non-food additives?

Because food is clearly labeled and you can choose to not use the food if you like. Vote with your dollar. However, you can just choose to breathe different air. However, I actually oppose smoking laws. If there is a large enough demand for smoking to not be done in restaurants the market will create non-smoking restaurants.

We do it all the time, we do it with different names, we allow and expect the government to have an effective Food and Drug Administration, we demand and expect the government to have good and effective USDA meat and food quality inspections, we demand and expect clean quality water from the tap, we demand and expect effective EPA emissions testing of the factories around us...

The Food and Drug administration's job (which it often doesn't do) is to make sure that food and drugs are properly labeled, does not go below a minimum level of cleanliness (in effect does not contain poison), that drugs do what they are advertised to do, etc. Their job is essentially to make sure the public is informed, not to deny us our right to choose. They are rather ineffective but if they operated as intended they would only narrowly affect our right to choose by only limiting our access to food and drugs for a very short period. However, like all government agencies they got fat and lazy. They are an argument against regulation, not for it.

The EPA does a similar job to the smoking laws, since we can't choose to not breathe the air around us or not drink the water, they have to make sure that it is kept to a minimum level. However, they tend to back off when we have a choice. Did you know bottled water is held to a much lower standard legally than tap water.

How far we go and to what extreme is open to discussion and public opinion, and finally, our vote.

Do we let them invade our homes? Yes, and we should (to a point). If we didn't let them in at all it wouldn't be against the law to beat your wife and kids... Ignorance that they are in danger is no reason not to outlaw lead paint.

Your comparisons are specious and not worth addressing. You might as well compare sex to rape.

:rolleyes:

That's your answer? You can't do better? If we were passing laws that abridged your freedom of religion, you wouldn't complain? If we passed laws that prevented you from marrying you wouldn't complain? You suggest that government involvement in the privacy of your home is okay because you think that the people who make the decisions will agree with you. I suspect you're wrong and if you manage to allow government the power you would like, you'll wish you hadn't.

I surveyed the four people in the office and we voted, you're wrong, that wasn't racist by unanimous vote (FYI - 1/2 members of office are African American single mothers )...
Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy. Particularly when you've conducted a study that isn't random and undoubtedly was posed diffently than it was posed here. Comparing a hate group to a pride group is like comparing misogyny to feminism. It's a false comparison and it either says that you are unaware of the history of black people and white people in this country or you don't care. I'm not in your office, so I don't know that what you are saying is true. My office is entirely white and when I read to officemates what you wrote they called you a biggot. It was unanimous. See, I can appeal to popularity as well.

I um...Woah.

Conservative Rantfest Galore. II couldnt be bothered to read the first post, so there's no chance of me reading the last 900 or so posts.

Promoting an androgynous community will deform the society like a disease that perverts the body. Family support and role-models will disappear from public view, to the point where the Family will cease to function as a social institution and the basic support system that has served its members emotional, moral and spiritual needs will fade away.

This was all so patronizing, presumptive, and pompous the first time I read it. But now when I re-read it, all I see are rows and rows of ugly shark teeth, grinding away at nothing.

Hey - maybe people have outgrown their supposed need for your proferred "basic support system". Ever mull that?

There's a time for everything. And there's a time for everything to fade away.

Ever read, 'I Am Legend'?

I um...Woah.

Conservative Rantfest Galore. II couldnt be bothered to read the first post, so there's no chance of me reading the last 900 or so posts.
Who the fuck is holding a pistol to your head and forces you to participate? :rolleyes:

Because food is clearly labeled and you can choose to not use the food if you like. Vote with your dollar. However, you can just choose to breathe different air. However, I actually oppose smoking laws. If there is a large enough demand for smoking to not be done in restaurants the market will create non-smoking restaurants.

When non-food additives and other agents in our environments are sold and used in the communities, advertised as safe etc., they end up in our food supply, our entire environment and can cause problems, especially with the very youngest members of our society..

When diet and environment, nutrition and household chemicals (cleaning supplies or whatever) turn out to be agents that cause ADD in our school children (for example) etc., then I say you are wrong, we DO have a right to demand that corporations not just report what they put in their products, but that they only use approved food ingredients and approved chemicals on their products because all of us, even those without children, end up paying the costs of having less healthy citizens. The damage would be immeasurable for each toxin left in circulation because of your live and label concept…

~PCB's and Dioxins:
Studies of adults exposed to dioxin and PCBs show no marked neurological effects. But numerous studies in humans and animals show that prenatal exposure frequently impairs brain and central nervous system development. Problems found include delayed speech and language development, slow development of reflexes and complex movements like walking, hyperactivity, and learning disabilities.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/01/980113155609.htm

~Mother's nutrition during pregnancy leads to adult child health factors:
Dr Rebecca Reynolds of the University of Edinburgh's Medical Sciences division, who is leading the study, said the 'Motherwell babies' would prove invaluable in this latest research. She explained: "We now know that growth from the very earliest days in the womb affects health in adulthood, particularly the risks of heart disease, diabetes and osteoporosis. If the mother eats an unbalanced diet this can trigger her body to produce increased amounts of stress hormones, which can then have long term effects on the stress responses of her unborn baby. These stress responses could be an important part of the link between development in the womb and health in later life."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050623001353.htm

"For the first time we have shown that the very structure of brain is influenced by what the mothers eat during pregnancy and that this specific nutrient choline appears to be critical," Zeisel said.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990310053532.htm


As the studies above reveal, the smallest infractions can cause the greatest of harm, to err on the side of caution seems only sensible to me.

I fail to see how you can justify stopping someone else (like me and others) who can see the dangers of not removing poisons and toxins and other unknown entities like artificial coloring (which aren't even made from organic food to begin with) from the a nation’s food supply, not even for you, in the name of some sort of misplaced freedom ideology. To say, everyone has a right sell whatever someone else will buy, it's labeled so Caveat emptor, etc., is not just disingenuous but is dangerous. The corporations don’t care about your theoretical health, if BHP’s let the corn flakes survive on the grocery store shelf for three extra weeks, then they’re using it and you’re eating it…

I completely disagree with you, known toxins can be removed entirely if the community demands it or the government agencies suspect an ingredient’s safety/value is too high and they decide to act. The power of the company to solicit politicians to block these laws should be curtailed, not encouraged as you would have it.

*talk about bloated and non-functioning agencies not working anyway*

So fix them. Just because they are broken and not doing a proper job of what they were designed to do doesn’t mean that the job they were designed to do isn't worth doing.

~~~~~

You're not getting an argument from me for that last parts, because your not making an argument, you're trying to position an opinion for me (badly and in error mind you) and saying that I say what I do because of my religious zealotry alone... that's not an argument, that's just name calling.

So you get another: :rolleyes:

I think you and I aren't going to agree on too many things :p
Lets agree to disagree. I would fight your "for the good of the children"-regime with teeth and claws and you value individual freedom to low that we could find something to agree upon.

This is the point he/she was trying to make.
He.

Lets agree to disagree. I would fight your "for the good of the children"-regime with teeth and claws and you value individual freedom to low that we could find something to agree upon.

I read an opinion piece about how both hard core conservatives and left of left liberals are needed in the country to balance each other out... That there are times one side's extremism is needed (like gun lovers needed to fight a war) and other times when the extreme liberal ideology and defense of liberties in the country needs defending so that the place remains a country that is worth fighting for...

I say the two of us, you and I, can agree to go string this opinion piece writer up by the neck and get back to our political bickering with each other, that guy would wreck the whole thing if everyone found out about that! :D

Hey - maybe people have outgrown their supposed need for your proferred "basic support system". Ever mull that?


Yes. Then I dismissed the idea for being without merit.

Yes. Then I dismissed the idea for being without merit.
Well clearly, you know best. No point in debating then.

All I can say, after perusing this thread (once again) is:

I am so, so very happy that you have no actual power to enforce your ideas. I would rather die fighting your idea of a perfect world than allow myself to become a slave to your ideas of family, sexuality and morality.

-snip-
(original post)



While I agree with the ideas presented about gender and family, the day I support giving the government more power is that day I move to France.

I am so, so very happy that you have no actual power to enforce your ideas. I would rather die fighting your idea of a perfect world than allow myself to become a slave to your ideas of family, sexuality and morality.

And I would die fighting along side of you, despite the fact that I hold these values on family, sexuality, and morality that you consider to be wrong and/or archaic. The government should not have the power to tell people how to live, unless they are directly harming others.

*People don't deserve rights rant*

You're not actually listening to the other posters or replying to the merits of their points. On the contrary, you're avoiding any points that dispute your position instead attempting to throw up smoke and mirrors. What does that commandment say again? Something about lying. I think we posted enough information in this thread that anyone who wishes to make an informed decision will see you for what you are.

I'm done. You're either too blind or to uncaring to see the obvious effect of implementing your ideas. As I can't heal the blind and I can't soften the hard heart, I choose to bow out. I leave you with the same advice I've given to other 'Christian' posters that spew dogma in such a way that it makes others use the word 'Christian' like a swearword. It would be amusing that you believe an omniscient God who gave us free will would wish for you to take it away if you weren't serious.

Titus 1-3 1You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine. 2Teach the older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, self-controlled, and sound in faith, in love and in endurance.

Titus 6-8 6Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. 7In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness 8and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.

I recommend you try practicing integrity, seriousness AND soundness of speech and perhaps you will see people begin to react differently to you.

:::note to thread: this is response to Jacobia and the accusation that I’m not being a good Christian (in his estimation), this is not topic related:::

*snip attack Greenlander's and say he makes Christians look bad post*


I cannot separate my worldview from my own personal thoughts and considerations, and I will not even try. But for this particular topic, I have proposed, established and laid out an argument outside of religious doctrine in support of the government’s interests in protecting and encouraging the advancement of ‘Family.’ That this topic has bothered you is obvious.

However, your affronting of my religious disposition has been as repetitive as it has been slanderous in how you say I have only hate in my message. Then now, to end it by quoting scripture at me and trying to say that I need to temper the message so that it fits what they want to hear and to soften it so that they feel no anger towards me and other Christians, then I say your post is preposterous in its inaccuracy.

I don’t know how you read scripture, but I don’t see where it says Christians are supposed to be trying to win a popularity contest. Consider how Jesus said himself that he would only give us the sign of "Jonah" as our miracle, and Jonah of all prophets didn’t even want to tell Nineveh that they could repent at all, rather that they were destroyed, but it was his job to give the warning anyway, so he did so.

We do not need to defend ourselves or try to make ourselves likeable, we just tell the truth and fight the good fight, spread the message of the good news and let God work with them. It’s not my job to save anyone, God does that, we just point in the proper direction.

But make no mistake about it, if you look around and find that you have a lot of secular friends and other defenders of your message, you’re likely not preaching the “good news” Jesus preached, and saves by.

Matthew 10 18-22
On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.

Mathew 10 26-28
"So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Matthew 10 34-42
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn

" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'

"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

"He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me. Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man's reward. And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward."

This thread does not stand alone. You've made it very clear where your ideas come from. You started with a premise based on your faith and you accepted any evidence that supports that premise regardless of its validity and rejected any evidence in opposition regardless of its validity. I attack and will attack anyone that uses their faith in Jesus and the Lord as an excuse to hate, deny rights and spew filth.

Matthew 10 18-22
On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.


Mathew 10 26-28
[i]"So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Matthew 10 34-42
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn

" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'

"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

"He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me. Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man's reward. And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward."

You're an apostle now, huh? Let's read the rest of that passage, shall we? Once again you show your ability to quote out of context to misrepresent the argument. This was a message to only the apostles and in it he said a lot of things you don't follow, my friend.

Matthew 10 5-6 5These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.

If these are instructions to you than follow all of them. If they are not, then don't try to present them as if they are. Are they instructions to you or not?

You quote about teaching but you haven't come to teach. You have come to bend truth to your ends, to use it as an excuse to judge and condemn. How about we quote some of Jesus' instructions to you and not to the apostles (like those pesky quotes I gave you earlier)?

Luke 6:37-40 37"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

I think the purpose of this passage is clear and you've missed it. Here's a little more of it.

39He also told them this parable: "Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? 40A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher.

Admit that you are as blind as I. This is why I do not attempt to lead people to the Lord. I encourage people to begin the journey and let Jesus lead them.

41"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Brother, why don't you work on your plank and I'll work on mine and we can both leave others to deal with their own specks of dust?

The teachings of Jesus are clear. We are here to be an example and to encourage people to live in the faith, but not to judge or condemn. You not only want to judge or condemn, you wish for your condemnation to become law. And I will fight you with every Christian fiber in my being.
It's not about being popular, it's about being compassionate. If your words are compassionate but not what people want to hear, they will forgive you. Your words are not compassionate. There is no compassion in mistreating those YOU'VE judged to be greater sinners than you. There is no compassion in deciding that people don't deserve to make their own decisions because they can't make them as well as YOU can.

I am so, so very happy that you have no actual power to enforce your ideas. I would rather die fighting your idea of a perfect world than allow myself to become a slave to your ideas of family, sexuality and morality.

Eugenics Wars, anybody? I know whose side I'll be on. And while I'd rather fight and live free, or simply be free to live, I'll never stop fighting.

I will never let an avowed eugenicist advance their political agendae through the media of human flesh and bone. Period.

Eugenics Wars, anybody? I know whose side I'll be on. And while I'd rather fight and live free, or simply be free to live, I'll never stop fighting.

I will never let an avowed eugenicist advance their political agendae through the media of human flesh and bone. Period.

Not even for all the tea in China? :p

Wow. All I have to say is, wow.

I'm a relative newcomer to this forum, but I have seen my share of crazy stuff.

But this monster of a thread takes the cake and eats it all.

Greenlander, you are one of the most slipery people I have ever seen debate, but unfortunately you aren't very good at it. There's a thing in School Policy Debate called "droppin arguments" and you are very good at that.

I've read throuh nearly the entirety of the thread, and I have tos ay I'm impressed with everyone who is engaging in this mucky and strange... although in different ways.

I've noticed that Greenlander cannot make any of his arguements stick, let's review them all, shall we?

Homosexuality as a disease- dropped and disproven
Greenlander's self-evidence- forgotten and crazy
Legal arguements that show the necessity of children in marriage- GONE

There's more, do you want me to continue?

the best, though, is that statement that Civil Liberties don't have to be applied equally across the board. Oh boy, that's a doozy. So, does that mena that Women and Black people still shou;d'nt have the right to vote? Becasue originally, only White Male LAndowners could do that. I'm pretty sure that's unequal right there.

Ooh, here's another one: how about when white people could only marry other white people? And minorities could only marry other minorities? Unequal right there.

Let's move on. Say... the focus of marriage. This will probably be the only time that you get a concession from anyone, but I will say that historically and today, marriages in which the family is stable and financially sound are the best way to raise children.

Now, stop. I said the BEST. Not the ONLY. I have many friends who are raised by divorced parents, and they are good students, excellent musicians and wonderful people. Families are the best, most proven way to raise a child.

However, there is no scientific conclusion that says that two people who ar willing parents, one with a good job and the other willing to care for a child, cannot be good parents. EVEN IF THEY ARE GAY.

So really, Greenlander, there's no reason to deny SSMs. Here's more reason: if, as they say, 10% of the population is homosexual, what percentage of that 10% would actually want to get married, or for that matter, have children? If it is, say, 4 or 3%, what's the pont? why not let them? Certainly, they aren't going to come down your hallway at night with their rainbow suits and kidnap you off to Gay Island and turn you into a crazed buttsex fiend- they just want the right to marry and live monogamously with their chosed partner.

Which brings up another point: Divorce. If, as the demand for SSM grows, it is apparent that loving gay couples wish to engage in monogamous, lasting relationship with a single other person, then why not? Wouldn't that reduce the divorce rate which you keep whining about? And, wouldn't it reduce the amount of unwanted and abandoned children, since they woulnd't have to worry about accidental conception and that pesky abortion issue? They'd just adopt unwanted children, raise them the best they could and give, instead of an urchin, a productive member to society!

Finally, you Greenlander.

You, simply, come across as a bigoted imbecile. Every valid point made by people like Jocabia and Demipublicents has been ignored and belittled by you. Every time someone proves you wrong, you either ignore them and move on or continue to beat that dead horse. Every time you make a point about law, or statistics, or whatever else, and someone proves you wrong, you simply ignore it, the hallmark of a fool.

Simply, you are insulting to every intelligent person who tries to engage in enlightened debate. I applaud Jocabia for their patience and intelligence in dealing with you.

Let me ask, how old are you? are you 13 or something? Are you married? Obviously you are a fundamentalist Christian, otherwise you'd listen to a little reason. Before you discredit my questions, labeling them irelevant like you did 30 pages ago, I tihnk they are very relevant, becasue if you cannot see past your own prejudices and resort to disugising them poorly with bad logic and rhetoric, then people should know why you act that way, because no intelligent, well-bred person would resort to such baseless and ignorant attacks over sucha period of time.

You, sir, are a clod.

*two cents*

To the above poster,

I think you make some good points and appreciate the things you said about me, but one point, you are not allowed to call people names on this forum, however deserved they might be. Greenlander has a ban for doing just that and won't even see your post for several days. If you'd like to extend your stay here and the wonderful Hotel NationStates, you might consider editing your post to make your points without flaming (name-calling).

Greenlander, you are one of the most slipery people I have ever seen debate, but unfortunately you aren't very good at it. There's a thing in School Policy Debate called "droppin arguments" and you are very good at that.
Hey, you're a policy debater? So am I. TG me with where you go to school.

Hey, you're a policy debater? So am I. TG me with where you go to school.

My economics teacher asked me to join the debate team after I got in an argument with him about market forces. He was also the coach of the debate team. I went to practice for a few weeks but the competitions were always on the same day at the same time as wrestling meets and tournaments, so I eventually dropped out. Seventeen years ago. Can't even remember the teacher's name these days.

To the above poster,

I think you make some good points and appreciate the things you said about me, but one point, you are not allowed to call people names on this forum, however deserved they might be. Greenlander has a ban for doing just that and won't even see your post for several days. If you'd like to extend your stay here and the wonderful Hotel NationStates, you might consider editing your post to make your points without flaming (name-calling).

Thanks for the heads-up, i'll be more careful.

As to debate, I compete in MIFA south of Lansing Michigan... missed making State Semis by one ballot last year.