Defense of Marriage

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Please walk me through how gay marriage would "weaken the institution of marriage" as well as how it affects the role of bringing up the next generation.

Heterosexual marriages are already ending in divorce at record high numbers. The single parent/divorce phenomenon is something that heterosexuals coined and minted ages ago. Nobody does divorce, adultery, and child abuse better than heterosexuals. Also, i would venture to guess that somewhere in the lines of about 100% of homosexuals were reared as children in heterosexual households.

Are you saying that allowing gays to marry and adopt children will somehow skew those numbers in the negative? How is that even mathematically possible given the ratio of hetero to homosexual in this country? Can't homosexuals raise children to be loving, law abiding, etc?

Also, gays can already adopt children and be parents to them. The argument that gay marriage will have a negative impact on child rearing is another scaremongering tactic.

Either you're just not trying to understand the argument or I'm not explaining it well, probably the latter. So I won't keep trying. I referenced a Stanley Kurtz piece on a different thread - he has other works on the linkage, you could google him. Anyway, it makes sense to me and it has nothing to do with the numbers of gay marriages or the fact that marriage is already suffering, which I have acknowledged. That's fine if you don't agree - I really am not that passionate the issue anyway, so I'm gonna drop it.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Appreciate your response and I respect your position.

I am close with only 2 gay people. I have met some of their friends who are gay, but am not close with them. In talking to both of my good friends, they both have the same concern....."why wont my country allow me to be married, just like everyone else?" They have no public political agenda. They have no interest in forcing their lifestyle on me. One of them is LDS and loves the Gospel. They don't go to Gay Pride parades. They don't have AIDS or HIV. They both want to experience parenthood and child-rearing, so they are very interested in adoption. Basically, these are just normal, good people, productive members of society, law abiding, and loving folks.

It is next to impossible for me to respond to my close friends, keep a straight face, and say, "well, i am just not convinced you need to be married. Let's wait and see....meantime, I will pat you patronizingly on the head and pretend like I really consider you my equal and that you merit the same opportunities as everyone else. By the way, legally you can marry a woman, so stop complaining."

Y, I am not saying you are being patronizing, I am just stating how it makes me feel to express those sentiments to my two friends. It is actually almost embarrassing because I cant come up with any cogent argument as to why they cant get married...at least not without bringing up arguments that assume that most or all homosexuals are pedophiles or promiscuous sex addicts. Like you, I agree it is a difficult issue and very confusing at time. While your approach is "wait and see," I guess mine is "err on the side of civil rights."

We tried the "wait and see" approach with blacks. It took 100 years to err on the side of civil rights. Fortunately, after the Civil Right Act, society did not come to an end because blacks all of a sudden could sit at the front of the bus and drink out of my drinking fountain.

PS You are good at summarizing stuff.

Well said.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by YOhio

I forgot that you're still concerned about a marriage amendment. IMO, that's about as politically practical as a Right to Life amendment. Strategically SSM supporters should hope that the marriage amendment picks up noticable steam as it would force those the fence sitters to take a side. Even a 50/50 split would be a victory for the SSM supporters, ensuring the status quo where SSM would be determined at a state level.

I could certainly live with this matter remaining a state's rights issue. As it currently stands, I see it as an ideal solution.

I do warn you from getting too smug about the progressivism of your fellow Washingtonians. Your state passed DOMA legislation in 1998 and it has been upheld by the WA Supreme Court.

Let me see if I can jog your memory a little further. The debate du jour arose because of the obo player's opposition to the LDS Church's stance on the amendment. I agree the amendment is probably dead in the water. But the obo player was burned at the stake because of his objection to it taking that political position. The amendment's virtual death is another good reason why they LDS Church should have stayed out of the whole thing.

Outside King County we are not so enlightened on social issues. I will readily admit that.

[minn_stat]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm still waiting for a convincing argument of how it weakens marriage.

...

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Please walk me through how gay marriage would "weaken the institution of marriage" as well as how it affects the role of bringing up the next generation.

...

I thought my original set of posts was designed to do exactly that.

I started with a simple question, "Why should government recognize marriage at all?" If it is a discriminatory institution, why have it at all?

My answer to this was "it is in society’s (and government’s) best interest to preserve itself by promoting institutions that protect, nurture, and prepare children to be the next generation of society", and I indicated that marriage is the primary institution for doing so.

I then pointed out that societies almost universally seem to understand this, which is why adoption and foster families are the preferred solution for children who have lost their parents.

I then used Kiernan's model of the four societal stages of modern societies to show the trends as to what is happening to marriage, families, and children on the macro scale. I cited several studies that have overwhelmingly shown this separation of parenting from marriage is bad for kids in multiple ways.

Finally, I tied this into gay marriage by examining the effects of legalized gay marriage in Scandinavia. I discussed briefly how these countries are the furthest along the stages of Kiernan's model, and how researchers believe that “gay marriage is both an effect and a reinforcing cause of the separation of marriage and parenthood."

So there is your Cliff Notes version of my earlier, long-winded posts.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by minn_stat

I thought my original set of posts was designed to do exactly that.

I started with a simple question, "Why should government recognize marriage at all?" If it is a discriminatory institution, why have it at all?

My answer to this was "it is in society’s (and government’s) best interest to preserve itself by promoting institutions that protect, nurture, and prepare children to be the next generation of society", and I indicated that marriage is the primary institution for doing so.

I then pointed out that societies almost universally seem to understand this, which is why adoption and foster families are the preferred solution for children who have lost their parents.

I then used Kiernan's model of the four societal stages of modern societies to show the trends as to what is happening to marriage, families, and children on the macro scale. I cited several studies that have overwhelmingly shown this separation of parenting from marriage is bad for kids in multiple ways.

Finally, I tied this into gay marriage by examining the effects of legalized gay marriage in Scandinavia. I discussed briefly how these countries are the furthest along the stages of Kiernan's model, and how researchers believe that “gay marriage is both an effect and a reinforcing cause of the separation of marriage and parenthood."

So there is your Cliff Notes version of my earlier, long-winded posts.

I think the assumption that gay married couples wouldn't want and/or be able to raise healthy well socialized children is wrong. In fact, I argue they would be better parents on average than heterosexual parents.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

I think the assumption that gay married couples wouldn't want and/or be able to raise healthy well socialized children is wrong. In fact, I argue they would be better parents on average than heterosexual parents.

Why would anyone want to deny a child growing up in a home without both a father and a mother?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Why would anyone want to deny a child growing up in a home without both a father and a mother?

Heterosexual marriage doesn't promise that at all.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Heterosexual marriage doesn't promise that at all.

No, it doesn't. But there is more of a chance for it in a heterosexual marriage than a homosexual marriage. There is zero chance of that in a same-sex marriage.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

No, it doesn't. But there is more of a chance for it in a heterosexual marriage than a homosexual marriage. There is zero chance of that in a same-sex marriage.

Is it bad to have two loving moms? two loving dads? I have no idea, either way.

Technically, John Stamos and Bob Sagat tried it and failed miserably. No child should be subjected to that crap.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Is it bad to have two loving moms? two loving dads? I have no idea, either way.

Technically, John Stamos and Bob Sagat tried it and failed miserably. No child should be subjected to that crap.

I'm not saying that it is bad to have two loving moms or dads. The few gay men that I know and have talked to about this have told me that they cherish the relationship with their mother. With that in mind, I wondered why they would want to deny a child a home without a mother.