Gay marriage in america

So far I haven't heard any proof that it is harmful for homosexuals to marry.

Any argument about children doesn't hold water. Studies have shown that children raised in households where a same-sex couple is present are no more likely to become gay or to have any problems with development or adjustment.

The idea that marriage is just for procreation doesn't hold water. There are lots of married couples who are unable or unwilling to have children, and they are just as legally married as anyone else. Nobody is required to prove his or her ability to have children.

Same-sex marriage doesn't threaten opposite-sex marriage. It takes away an encouragment for a gay person to marry a nongay person, and that seems likely to eliminate some divorces. The idea that allowing a group of marry threatens marriage doesn't sound logical.

Same-sex marriage isn't as untried as some would like to have it. Consider Denmark, where a form of marriage has been available for some years now to same-sex couples. The marriages have led to a reduction in suicide rates and STDs. Large numbers of Danish clergy who opposed the introduction of same-sex marriage now favor it because of its positive effects.

What is harmful is what happens to a longterm same-sex couple when one of them dies.

Imagine that you are living with a same-sex partner for many years. If the house or apartment is in your partner's name, you may be kicked out of a home you shared with someone for years. This doesn't happen the same way for heterosexual couples.

Some states have laws that deal with whether heterosexual married people can testify against their spouses. There is also the question of taxes.

A married couple can get discounts and "family" rates from certain businesses. I can't assume I'll get those things for a same-sex partner.

I suspect that the real argument that some people offer against same-sex marriage is that they're just not comfortable with it. I don't think that discomfort should be the basis for a law. Some people weren't comfortable with the abolition of slavery or greater equality for nonwhite people in the USA, but now it's the law and we're better off for it.

Some people persist in believing that same-sex marriage will lead to recruiting. Given the heterosexual monopoly on marriage all these years, you would think that there would hardly be any gay people yet. People will be gay or not gay regardless of laws and public opinion. If you're not gay, could gay people somehow recruit you to be gay? I strongly doubt it.

 

You'd have to prove that gay marriage harms the children in that marriage. If it does harm them, not only should gay marriage not be allowed, but gays shouldn't be allowed to raise children at all (since the married/nonmarried status does not change the harmfulness of the situation) There is no proof that gay relationships are harmful to the children raised in it.
Furthermore, gay marriage can protect children, because it allows the gay partner to be recognised as a parent, even after the biological parent has died. Thus ensuring that the child isn't pulled out of its known environment, which is surely better for the child.

Also, marriage isn't simply about protecting the children, it's about protecting the partners. (inheritance, etc)

 

Sage, they are the one's who are trying to change the law. They must prove the negative, just as those of different races marrying proved the negative, just as those above a certain age proved the negative, they must prove the negative.

Please, Please, Please, show me those studies, i would love too see them and their acceptance in the scientific community.

The fact that some couples do not want to have children is fine but TOTALLY besides the point. Unless you want to give a restricted marriage to homosexuals where they cant have kids, it does not change the fact that the LEGAL STATUS of marriage is to protect the children. DEAR GOD i wish heterosexual couples were required to prove this sagedreamer.
(You bring up a very good point with which i agree. THere are a lot of other problems that heterosexual couples give to their childrens. I firmly believe that this must be stopped and probably before we even discuss gay marriage but we are only discussing gay marriage so lets stick to that.)
All this does not change the fact that the "main" (which i now know is a good word to add) purpose of MARRIAGE AS A LEGAL STATUS is to protect children.

Your fourth paragraph was never mentioned in previous posts so i dont know why your talking about it because i am not arguing that.

The way you use the example of Denmark is a little dissapointing; I wish you did not say this because it degrades your point. It must have been easy for these scientists to link a lowering of suicide rates, divorces, and STD's to this form of marriage. They somehow placed all other factors in the governement and society that affect these bad things aside. I question the credibility of your source, and please explain this form of marriage as opposed to Denmarks regular form of marriage. Also, please research other changes that were made in Denmark's laws during that time and you will convince me.

Please explain your 6th and 7th paragraph, I dont understand them. But please stick to marriage.

You are returning again to the purpose of marriage. These "benefits" as you call them are defenitely not the most important part of the status. There are other laws that can be established to give same-sex partners these "benefits." Look at all the description of the law as conserned with marriage, they are not all "benefits." I also doubt that same-sex couples care about these "benefits." as much as they care about the societal recognition.

These last two paragraphs are ridiculous your debating with the arguments of other people. Discuss with me not with other people.

Thanks SageDreamer, very well thought out response.

 

.

There are several studies that show that children raised by gay parents are as healthy and capable as children raised by straingt parents. Please concider this review of one such study from the Council on Contemporary Families

You can read the full story at the site. As stated above, the main difference is that the girls tend to be more willing to try careers that might normally be considered a masculine field. While the boys tend to me more nurturing and caring. What's wrong with tha?

Stacey conducted the study because of the biased studies being promoted by anti-gay conservatives.

.

 

i went to a gay civil partnership yesterday here in england, and it was beautiful, very happy we have finally made this possible, but it is still just a step to full acceptance.
im not gay, but i think that love is love, whether it is between a man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman.
good luck to you all

 

Lets consider Stacey's conclusions

-no more likely to identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual.
The fact that they will be gay or not is not a factor of harm.
-"There is no evidence whatsoever of harm to kids according to the sexual orientation of their parents," Stacey said.
There is no evidence that it will harm kids, which I doubt but since Im not going to look for it I will agree, but Stacey must prove the negative and her studies does not deal with that.
-more lesbian parents plan their pregnancies...We certainly know these are all wanted children
Planned pregnancies wow something we should all learn to do, I agree that this is good but again I was not disputing this fact. Planned pregnancies however, does not indicate whether or not the parents would "harm the children."
-higher levels of social popularity.
Ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous, social popularity means nothing as an indication of phsycological (prolly bad spelling) harm. Sociopaths (also prolly bad spelling) have high social popularity.
-The children of gay men and lesbians, especially girls, are more likely than others to depart from traditional gender roles
Neither good nor bad, just an interesting observation.
-Children of gays are just as likely as children of heterosexuals to wish they were a member of the opposite sex
Obvious and just another interesting observation.
-less likely to show aggression than other boys.
You got me here. This could be an important indication of good. But it leads me to another important point.

YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO convince those crazy conservatives, hahaha, I hope that wasnt the purpose of the study.
BUT you will be able to convince the scientific community and if studies like Stacey's convince them then we have a solution to the whole problem.
BUt until then this study is just interesting and important to throw out some possibilities.

Little flower keep ethics and morals out of it please for my sake.

THANKs hipunk i very much appreciate that post.

 

.
Thank you, Little flower. You're sweet.


I have yet to read the actual report by Stacey and Biblarz; I've only read the review I quoted. So, It would seem strange to critique the findings of the study based on that review. But that is what we do, isn't it?

What I find interesting in this study is that Stacey has not tried to sugar coat her findings. While some of the data may be misinterpreted by the right wing nuts, it's clear that their findings present gay and lesbian parents as raising children who are discernibly different from children raised by straight parents. Not worse or bad, just different. Like the differences between children raised in a Chinese Buddhist household to the children raised in a Russian Catholic household.

You're nit-picking of the study, Laetus, seems to be missing that point.

Yes, that's the point Stacey is trying to make.

After analyzing the data which they collected, Stacy sees no indication of harm. She was not out to "prove" anything; they were trying to conduct an unbiased survey of the facts. The facts they collected show that children are not harmed by being raised by gay or lesbian parents. Their study seems to be two fold. They compared old data that had been evaluated in other studies and conducted new interviews (new data) with families with lesbian parents.

They did not conclude that parents who plan pregnancies will not harm their children, but were drawing on past research that shows that the offspring of planed pregnancies are generally better cared for.

I have to say your reaction sounds a bit hysterical. This review of the study did not explain that conclusion, I would be interested to know myself the criteria for social popularity. Since this was an unbiased study Stacy wisely chose not to comment on why the respondents showed a high level of social popularity. I would speculate that it is because these children have a deeper sense of empathy, something that shows up elsewhere in the study.

The point of the study was to show how these children differ. Like you said, and as the study confirms, these differences are neither good or bad, but interesting.

Simply a fact of the study.

The study was a reaction to unscientific "research" conducted by the wing nuts in America, who used their studies to convince legislatures to write anti gay laws. By having the proper evidence available, we don't change the minds of those crazy idiots, but we do keep them from deceiving our moderate legislators.

.

 

If this was the point I missed:

...I'm actually quite relieved that I wasn't able to see it.

 

Ask and you shall receive: www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

Same-sex couples can only have children through adoption. Same-sex marriage will not automatically confer adoption rights. I'm not clear about what children need to be protected from if same-sex marriage occurs. Plenty of heterosexuals molest children. The effect on children of living with a same-sex couple has been dealt with in other posts, so I hope you'll understand why I'm not rehashing that here.

Sorry, but I have to return to the purpose of marriage. The "benefits" are not the most important part of the status to you, but they are very important to many couples, heterosexual and otherwise. I could give the example of a married couple (man + woman) in my area who have been married for more than twenty years. Their primary purpose for marrying has been companionship and allowing the woman to be covered by the man's medical insurance. They have no children. For many Americans, medical care is a very, very big issue. Some people here struggle with medical bills and are not covered because their partner's insurance doesn't cover same-sex partners. These are people who love their partners deeply, and would marry for love as well as for medical coverage.

Why should such people have to be covered by a different law? Love is love, and need is need. When I hear about celebrity couples who remain married for a few weeks and months, I don't hear a peep from anyone about changing laws. Those heterosexuals make a mockery of marriage. Same-sex people who love one another should at least have the chance to make a marriage work. People who argue for a separate status anger me as a gay man, because it sounds like to them marriage is pure, and same-sex couples would "contaminate" it.

As far as societal recognition, there may be couples who crave it. However, it wouldn't be such a bad thing. After all, lots of young gay boys and lesbians grow up seeing no other gay people. We hear about same-sex relationships not lasting. Positive role models could help us to know that we are not alone or unable to make a marriage work.

 

Perhaps slightly off topic, but here's my 2 cents anyhow....



Laetus, you have several times mentioned children as an example of something that could be harmed by gay marriages. I would ask you - how is it more harmful to a child to be raised by a loving, devoted, married gay couple than by a married hetero couple whose relationhip is physically or emotionally abusive? Or to be raised by a couple who does not use drugs or alcohol, but happens to be gay, than by a hetero couple who abuse drugs or alcohol? Is it somehow worse for a child to see a gay couple with a stable relationship than it is for a child to see their single parent who is straight bringing home random people met in a bar for casual sex? Being straight does not neccessarily make you a suitable parent. Not that all gays would be good parents, but there's no reason that they should be barred from being married because of some nebulous idea that it might "harm the children".

 

Kind of coming in the middle here, but thought I'd leave my opinion anyway. I believe that all people are actually bisexual. Here's why... just because you may think that you are only into one gender doesn't mean that you know you are. Having never found one of the other gender that you loved doesn't mean that you never will. I may believe that I'm heterosexual, but what if one day I found a girl that I DID love? Maybe chance meeting is the only thing that creates heterosexuals or homosexuals. Because I've only loved guys, I think that I only CAN love guys, when, in fact, there may be a girl perfect for me out there. Why can't we all be bisexuals.

Oh yeah, someone once told me: isn't it kind of discrimination to only be attracted to one sex?
Someone else told me: If you're not bisexual, you're missing half the fun. Haha.

 

Wow what a great set of responses
It is very hard to respond to all of them
Ill give it a try.

Hipunk I believe we agree on everything concerning Stacey's study except in one area.
In my extremely immature scientific mind I believe that as you said the study was a reaction to the unscientific. However, the study is very specific and is not compeletly related to my point that there is a chance that a child being raised by two parents of the same gender can be unintentionally traumatic for the child, i hate to say it but just in the same way, but maybe not in the same intensity, as a child that was molested. I probably shouldnt have said that because of the emotional response I will recieve from you all, however, take it as a direction to my point. The only point that you quoted Stacey on that is relevant to mine is that of the "less aggressive" child raised by same-sex couples. If you want to refute my argument those are the types of results the studies should recieve. I admit I am not a scientist and I am not aware of the correct study to prove your point but as i have said before that is your burden.
It is also very important to see the reaction of the "scientific community" to these studies. Dont go looking for the studies' acceptance because we are just discussing but i just want to stress its importance.
That was a little fuzzy hipunk i hope you understood what i mean.

ok, self control.

Sagedreamer, I abhor the essay that you cited. The author, Scott Bidstrup, of the essay is extremely biased and wrong in too many points to address, some I have already done. I also was not looking for essays. Essays do not prove. However, I did find a number of cites within the essay. These are what I am looking for. I looked at those and they seem convincing. So you got me there are plenty of studies to prove the negative. You might not be very happy with me but i ask for more. As I have said above, acceptance by the unbiased "scientific community" is what I need because even studies can be misleading. I am sure I can find my own studies stating the opposite, if you disagree just ask me to find them I am still annoyed over the writing of this essay, he doesnt even spend his time analyzing the studies.
You talk about the purpose of marriage as created by the people. I talk of the purpose of marriage as created by the government. Sage, there are plenty of much better government policies to better suit this concept of marriage for love that you bring up. (i.e. prenuptual (ahhhh spelling) agreements mandatory) All these benefits are created by the government to better suit the generic family, whether or not the motivation of marriage of the people is not for procreation makes no difference.
Love is love, yes, I agree, irrelevant to my point.
I also agree that heterosexuals make a mockery of marriage and it makes me angry. As you can see I am not angry about same-sex marriages I am just against it. However, same-sex couples have the same "mockerifying" potential and I dont argue it.

Gypsy, love and devotion are a quality that all human beings are capable of no matter their sexual orientation. My point is that a generic gay-raised child will recieve more unintentional harm than a generic non-gay-raised child (super adjective).

Peaceloveandshrooms, how asinine, I dont think anyone agrees with you and in my knowledge I think that is biologically impossible.

And so as not to get you bored I though of a new idea that i want to ask you.
Take it lightly because its just a random idea that i thought of.

What is the criteria that allows a same-sex couple to marry and not polygomous partners.

Thanks a lot for the responses, very stimulating.

 

Biologically impossible? Why? I would love to hear about how everyone being bisexual is biologically impossible. And just so you know... the truth of a statement does not depend on how many people believe that it's true, in my opinion.

 

oh really, ok, go ahead and live in your own world and believe in your own opinions but...

actually keep posting its entertaining

 

Why should gay marriage be legal? Because gay marriages took place in both Greece and Rome. In fact, when the Bible speaks out about it, it is a reaction to the persecution Jews faced in Babylon; Christianity is based off of Judaism. The whole reason it was mentioned was to seperate Judaism from the "pagan" religion of Babylon.

 

So what of single parents? Does only being raised by a parent of one gender limit a childs freedom? It almost sounds like you are implying that single parents harm children biologically. In doing so, you would be saying that they would not be able to protect their children. Care to clarify yourself?

 

Well, Laetus, would you care to elaborate on how being raised by homosexual parents would "limit a child's freedoms"? Because you have mentioned this, but not been very specific. I'm guessing you mean that those children could be targets of teasing etc. in school?

 

If teasing is the problem, you might as well not allow fat people or ugly people to get married. Children with fat parents and ugly parents get picked on all the time. While we're at it, don't let poor people get married, because some children who can't afford the things the other children in the neighborhood have get picked on too.

 

I am having a problem with your "stance." The review on the Stacey report shows that children who are raised by two parents of the same gender are not traumatized, nor do they show signs of being traumatized because of their upbringing. You seem to be saying that a scientific report, investigating these children, that concludes no ill effects, was not trying hard enough. (like finding WMD in Iraq, the U.N just wasn't looking hard enough.) Show me where in that study they were faulty? You can't. You refuse to believe scientific evidence that refutes your biased and unsubstantiated claims, the burden of proof is yours.

The study was accepted by the scientific community, it was posted in the American Sociological Review which is a peer review journal. The paper would not have been accepted if the research was suspect. You seem to be saying that you would like to "see the reaction" of the "fake" scientific community that has sprung up not to share knowledge but to condemn the GLBT community.

As I said before, my religion says that two women should be allowed to be married, as should two men. The antigay marriage acts are unconstitutional on the grounds of the 1st amendment, freedom of religion.

SageDreamer, you mention teasing, but I don't recall Laetus saying that. I would be interested to know specifically how she comes about the accusation that it "can be unintentionally traumatic for the child." That seems to be a gross assumption with absolutely no basis in fact. Because Laetus hates LGBT people, she wants everyone to believe we would be unfit parents. But this thread is about marriage, being a parent isn't a condition of marriage.

.

 

I was the one who first mentioned the teasing... I was just trying to guess what Laetus means by possibly traumatic effects on children.

And your last sentence is right on target.
Marriage is not primarily about the (possible) children. Otherwise most people would get married when their first child is expected, not before that.