I can’t help but notice, with all the rhetoric about the harm that might come to children if the same sex marriage ban is overturned and all the other specious arguments for continuing it, nobody has discussed that any two people of the opposite sex in this country who are of age and not married already can get married, and that includes murderers, thieves, rapists and child abusers. Meanwhile, their ability to procreate never comes into the picture as it does for same sex couples. Yet we never hear a word about these people being permitted to marry.
Somehow, no one thinks these marriages might be harmful to children who may come into the marriage or who are born into the marriage, nor does procreation comes into the discussion. Why does the Court–and the people in general–never address this topic but are so quick to argue against same sex marriage? All of the arguments against same sex marriage could be applied to marriages where one of the participants is a criminal or where procreation betwwen the participants is not possible, but it never is. Why should the court get involved in the legality of same sex marriage when it doesn’t get involved in the legality of other kinds of marriage, including where there is a real chance of harm to children or the participants? My question is why the double standard?
There also seems to be a lot of disturbing sentiment for the government to define marriage according to religious principles, despite the establishment clause. Of course those religious principles somehow have nothing to say about criminality.
For the record, I don’t think government should be involved in defining marriage at all, but that’s not the way this government sees it, so we’re stuck with it and with all the asinine contradictions involved in government being involved.
- Scalia’s argument that children in single sex homes might be harmed as a basis for denying overturn of Prop. 8, seems to lead to the fact that the children of divorced parents and those where a parent dies or leaves should be taken away and placed in two adult/heterosexual homes.
- His concern that children might be bullied based on having homosexual parents as an argument against Prop. 8 overturn makes me wonder what he thinks should be done to prevent bullying of kids who are at all out of the average in height, weight, eyesight, ethnicity, intelligence, etc.
- My solution: Go through all the local and national government documents and replace the word, “marriage” with “civil union” or “domestic partnership”. “Marriage” would be relegated to those who wished to have a religious ceremony as well as the civil one.
Occam
1. Scalia's argument that children in single sex homes might be harmed as a basis for denying overturn of Prop. 8, seems to lead to the fact that the children of divorced parents and those where a parent dies or leaves should be taken away and placed in two adult/heterosexual homes. 2. His concern that children might be bullied based on having homosexual parents as an argument against Prop. 8 overturn makes me wonder what he thinks should be done to prevent bullying of kids who are at all out of the average in height, weight, eyesight, ethnicity, intelligence, etc. 3. My solution: Go through all the local and national government documents and replace the word, "marriage" with "civil union" or "domestic partnership". "Marriage" would be relegated to those who wished to have a religious ceremony as well as the civil one. OccamI agree, Occam Lois
I agree that there is a significant issue of semantics, and as a skeptic, I really don’t think that if a relationship is called a marriage of a domestic partnership it matters at all. But, many gay couples are religious, so I suppose the terminology will remain an issue, somehow.
As to the rearing of children: If we, as a society are going to start evaluating a couples qualifications for rearing children, there are a hell of a lot of heteros who shouldn’t be allowed to be married either. At least a gay couple has to make a conscious decision to have a family. That may actually mean the odds of having a dedicated, caring set of parents could be significantly higher in a gay household.
And, regardless of what the court says, it is just wrong that people cannot form dedicated partnerships and enjoy the privileges conferred by the state on such officially recognized relationships. Qualifying those relationships by sexual orientation is a huge reach for the government and an expansion of it’s role. I’ll bet many of the people opposed to same sex marriage also believe they want smaller government. It would be funny if it wasn’t so stupid and cruel.
I see at least one problem with gays getting married. If you allow them to get married, eventually you’ll have to decide if they should be allowed to adopt children. And this is where I am not sure what the decision should be. It was somebody on this forum who rightly pointed me to the fact that kids growing up surrounded by gays are themselves more likely to turn gay. Why is that? Before we know the answer to that, I would prefer if we could postpone the decision on allowing gays to adopt kids.
...kids growing up surrounded by gays are themselves more likely to turn gay. Why is that? Before we know the answer to that, I would prefer if we could postpone the decision on allowing gays to adopt kids.There would be more gays. And? Is that a problem? Are gays still people that we accept, but in fact it were better they would not exist (like people born blind, or something)?
If more children who are raised by gay couples end up identifying as “gay”, why is that an issue? I don’t think being gay makes one 3/5th s of a person or something. I have no data, of course, but I wonder if the larger percentage of children of gay couples identifying as gay, reveals more about how many people have some homosexual tendencies, and how children raised by gay parents are less likely to be sexually conflicted and therefore closeted.
We don’t know why it happens which is why I think it’s troubling. What if homosexuality is caused by a pathogen and the kids simply get infected? And if you think I am crazy for asking this question, let me assure you I am not the only one; this was on Pinker’s list of “dangerous ideas.”
And no, gays aren’t any less human than heterosexuals, but if I had a choice, I would prefer my kids didn’t turn gay.
I see at least one problem with gays getting married. If you allow them to get married, eventually you'll have to decide if they should be allowed to adopt children. And this is where I am not sure what the decision should be. It was somebody on this forum who rightly pointed me to the fact that kids growing up surrounded by gays are themselves more likely to turn gay. Why is that? Before we know the answer to that, I would prefer if we could postpone the decision on allowing gays to adopt kids.Emphasis added. First, as already noted, so what? Other people's sexual orientation is none of your business. If you have a problem with gays you need to get over it. Second, I researched gay marriage for my Ethical Analysis class, and found a plethora of research showing that living in a loving home leads to well-adjusted children, regardless of the parents gender orientation. Not allowing gays to adopt kids deprives children from potentially healthy family relationships. There is no peer-reviewed research indicating adopted children of gay parents suffer due to the family structure. The only harm they suffer comes from bigots who do not accept gay parents.
I see at least one problem with gays getting married. If you allow them to get married, eventually you’ll have to decide if they should be allowed to adopt children. And this is where I am not sure what the decision should be. It was somebody on this forum who rightly pointed me to the fact that kids growing up surrounded by gays are themselves more likely to turn gay. Why is that? Before we know the answer to that, I would prefer if we could postpone the decision on allowing gays to adopt kids.Where's the research to support that claim George? There's a ton of misinformation pumped out by the Heritage foundation touting this claim and as usual the majority of it is skewed to the right. While the research is relatively new on the effects of gay parenting, present studies prove otherwise, I.e. there is no overall effect on children. You can't become gay any more than you can become hetero. If your contention was true then a gay child surrounded by straight parents,relatives and friends would grow up hetero. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting Cap't Jack
I’m planning to become a raging homophobe as soon as it becomes clear that the human race is in danger of extinction due to the failure to reproduce.
I have a problem with gays, Darron? What the hell are you taking about? Have you ever read any of my many previous posts on this topic?
It seems to me that the one who may actually have a problem is you and everyone else in this thread, as you are simply not willing to reconsider what you already believe. If there is a chance homosexuality may be infectious, we need take it into consideration. If, for whatever reason, my kids one day end up being adopted, I’d like them to be in good hands. I certainly don’t think that gays couldn’t provide for adopted children, but let’s first see where the numbers of kids turning gay while surrounded by other gays are coming from. Again, I couldn’t care less who is gay or whom they marry; actually, I do care: I hope gay marriage becomes legal one day everywhere on our planet. But (!), I don’t want them to have the right to adopt kids until this question gets resolved.
... let's first see where the numbers of kids turning gay while surrounded by other gays are coming from.And you say you don't have a problem with gays? Sounds to me like you have conflicting beliefs and have not analyzed them closely enough to figure out which way to lean. I'll repeat: So what? If you truly don't care about people's sexual orientation why are you so worried about children becoming gay?
Not to belabor the the obvious, but gay couples are already having and/or adopting children, and I’ve seen nothing credible to indicate that the children of gay parents are any more likely to become gay as a result.
What I’m more then just a little curious about is why uninvolved parties take such a profound and snoopy interest in what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes to express affection or enjoy an orgasm, or both.
Or as their alleged jewish carpenter boss once said when asked about a "beloved’ disciple: “What is that to you?”
... let's first see where the numbers of kids turning gay while surrounded by other gays are coming from.And you say you don't have a problem with gays? Sounds to me like you have conflicting beliefs and have not analyzed them closely enough to figure out which way to lean. I'll repeat: So what? If you truly don't care about people's sexual orientation why are you so worried about children becoming gay? I already said I am worried (a little worried) about MY kids turning gay. If you had a chance to prevent your children or grandchildren from becoming gay, wouldn't you? I am simply not a person who thinks that competing for the Darwin Award is all that noble. I like me and I want my genes to stick around for awhile.
... let's first see where the numbers of kids turning gay while surrounded by other gays are coming from.And you say you don't have a problem with gays? Sounds to me like you have conflicting beliefs and have not analyzed them closely enough to figure out which way to lean. I'll repeat: So what? If you truly don't care about people's sexual orientation why are you so worried about children becoming gay? I already said I am worried (a little worried) about MY kids turning gay. If you had a chance to prevent your children or grandchildren from becoming gay, wouldn't you? I am simply not a person who thinks that competing for the Darwin Award is all that noble. I like me and I want my genes to stick around for awhile. No, George, I never worried about my son being gay and it would not upset me if he were. It's all genetics anyway. Parents have little influence over their children, as you may recall.
Once again, where’s the research supporting the claim that people TURN gay? Research does exist, especially in the field of epigenetics that support the theory that gay people are born with that orientation. so I’ m pretty sure that your kids are safe.
Cap’t Jack
Jack, we know environment plays a role. It’s not 100% genetic. What that environmental influence is, is anybody’s guess.
As to when exactly people turn gay, I don’t think anyone can tell. How could they? How would you know if it happens in the womb, at six months or six years?
... let's first see where the numbers of kids turning gay while surrounded by other gays are coming from.And you say you don't have a problem with gays? Sounds to me like you have conflicting beliefs and have not analyzed them closely enough to figure out which way to lean. I'll repeat: So what? If you truly don't care about people's sexual orientation why are you so worried about children becoming gay? I already said I am worried (a little worried) about MY kids turning gay. If you had a chance to prevent your children or grandchildren from becoming gay, wouldn't you? I am simply not a person who thinks that competing for the Darwin Award is all that noble. I like me and I want my genes to stick around for awhile. No, George, I never worried about my son being gay and it would not upset me if he were. It's all genetics anyway. Parents have little influence over their children, as you may recall. Okay, now you're being just silly. I guess it's time to stop.
Jack, we know environment plays a role. It’s not 100% genetic. What that environmental influence is, is anybody’s guess. As to when exactly people turn gay, I don’t think anyone can tell. How could they? How would you know if it happens in the womb, at six months or six years?I know you're done with this topic but if you recall our original discussions in the past on this issue we seemed to have flip flopped. I used to argue more nurture than nature but now from what I've read (many books you suggested) I see it as more than 50% nature. reviewing the very books you recommended will answer your question concerning what happens in the womb and as I stated before if environment is a major determiner then a child born with homosexual tendencies, surrounded by a hetero environment would "become" hetero but studies don't show this. It's just the other way round. People don't turn gay any more than people turn straight. more long term research will finally settle the issue. In the meantime it remains a civil rights issue. Cap't Jack