Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

[Rikurzhen]

Rikurzhen, you posted "Why does society care that two people love each other? The legal and social benefits only kick in when kids are born." That's not correct. There are economic benefits to marriage for childless people in terms of employment benefits, social security, health care decision making ..... This was actually the basis for striking down DOMA, and there was no mention there of kids.

I apologize for not being clear. What I wrote was about how laws SHOULD be. Those economic benefits to marriage should not exist for couples without kids, for after all, marriage is about love. Society doesn't benefit when you love your spouse. Society benefits when you sacrifice and raise kids.

Well, ok. But the laws exist. If laws only conveyed economic rights to child rearing couples, or laws conveyed no benefits at all, you'd maybe have a point. But that's not the law, and I really don't see any changes occurring.

You don't see changes occurring? I, and others, sure do. Let me explain how the changes play out.

Think of a baseball game. At the end of the game a MVP is selected and gets an award. Now inject liberal parents into the situation and at the end of the game every player gets a MVP award.

Those benefits to marriage now get extended to more and more groups, meaning those left out of the circle get more and more pissed off with subsidizing those in the circle. They could understand the benefits when they were focused on couples having kids, for with kids parents eat the cost of raising them and society, rather than the parents, gets huge financial benefits from the taxes those kids pay, but now the benefits go to people who love each other. The change won't be a clawback of benefits, it will be an extension of the same benefits to more and more groups until no one is left outside of the circle providing the subsidy.

The benefits will cease to be beneficial because any gain in one area will have to be offset by increased taxes and burdens in other areas due to the loss of subsidy from single people.

 

[Seawytch]

Sad, I think it is beyond belief that people refuse to allow children to have a voice, children who are to be adopted.

A decent society would guarantee a mom and dad to orphaned children.

It is simple, a child learns from a healthy, natural family. A child needs a man and woman to learn. Sure, many overcome single parent families, but nothing beats Christmas with parents and grandparents who have literally given birth to the family.

Homosexuals and the Activists will never know the truth, for they have chosen and live a life in which they never see the intricate dynamics lived between father, mother and the children.

If the American psychological association, psychiatric association, medical association and pediatricans agreed with you, I might as well.

You do not know what these people think. They all agree with me.
And again, if someone looks to a study to make decision about the proper development of children, it's obvious that person has not the knowledge or experience raising children to make such extreme decisions for children.

Let children speak, not researchers accredited by government.

Not a single major medical or psychological association agrees with you. The APA, AMA AAP, all agree that children do just fine in same sex households AND they ALL support adoption by gays.

 

[Seawytch]

Rikurzhen, you posted "Why does society care that two people love each other? The legal and social benefits only kick in when kids are born." That's not correct. There are economic benefits to marriage for childless people in terms of employment benefits, social security, health care decision making ..... This was actually the basis for striking down DOMA, and there was no mention there of kids.

I apologize for not being clear. What I wrote was about how laws SHOULD be. Those economic benefits to marriage should not exist for couples without kids, for after all, marriage is about love. Society doesn't benefit when you love your spouse. Society benefits when you sacrifice and raise kids.

And gays, who can and do have children, get the goodies too, right?

 

[Seawytch]

Sad, I think it is beyond belief that people refuse to allow children to have a voice, children who are to be adopted.

A decent society would guarantee a mom and dad to orphaned children.

It is simple, a child learns from a healthy, natural family. A child needs a man and woman to learn. Sure, many overcome single parent families, but nothing beats Christmas with parents and grandparents who have literally given birth to the family.

Homosexuals and the Activists will never know the truth, for they have chosen and live a life in which they never see the intricate dynamics lived between father, mother and the children.

If the American psychological association, psychiatric association, medical association and pediatricans agreed with you, I might as well.

You do not know what these people think.
And again, if someone looks to a study to make decision about the proper development of children, it's obvious that person has not the knowledge or experience raising children to make such extreme decisions for children.

Let children speak, not researchers accredited by government.

Well, there are kids of gay parents who think their childhood was great. Legally, there has to be scientifically validated evidence. And the APAs and AMA are not govt tools.

Sad, I think it is beyond belief that people refuse to allow children to have a voice, children who are to be adopted.

A decent society would guarantee a mom and dad to orphaned children.

It is simple, a child learns from a healthy, natural family. A child needs a man and woman to learn. Sure, many overcome single parent families, but nothing beats Christmas with parents and grandparents who have literally given birth to the family.

Homosexuals and the Activists will never know the truth, for they have chosen and live a life in which they never see the intricate dynamics lived between father, mother and the children.

If the American psychological association, psychiatric association, medical association and pediatricans agreed with you, I might as well.

You do not know what these people think.
And again, if someone looks to a study to make decision about the proper development of children, it's obvious that person has not the knowledge or experience raising children to make such extreme decisions for children.

Let children speak, not researchers accredited by government.

Well, there are kids of gay parents who think their childhood was great. Legally, there has to be scientifically validated evidence. And the APAs and AMA are not govt tools.

There is no, "scientifically validated evidence", that children will choose two men in a homosexual relationship as parents.

So thank you for validating my post while destroying your own.

Let children decide who their parents are? Did doctors leave a sponge in your brain after surgery?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Rikurzhen, you posted "Why does society care that two people love each other? The legal and social benefits only kick in when kids are born." That's not correct. There are economic benefits to marriage for childless people in terms of employment benefits, social security, health care decision making ..... This was actually the basis for striking down DOMA, and there was no mention there of kids.

I apologize for not being clear. What I wrote was about how laws SHOULD be. Those economic benefits to marriage should not exist for couples without kids, for after all, marriage is about love. Society doesn't benefit when you love your spouse. Society benefits when you sacrifice and raise kids.

And gays, who can and do have children, get the goodies too, right?

Not if they're human rights violators. If they adopt a child, then yes. If they enter their marriage with a child from a failed normal marriage, then yes. But purposely creating a child in order to deprive the child of its human rights, no, that cannot be encouraged.

 

[elektra]

Sad, I think it is beyond belief that people refuse to allow children to have a voice, children who are to be adopted.

A decent society would guarantee a mom and dad to orphaned children.

It is simple, a child learns from a healthy, natural family. A child needs a man and woman to learn. Sure, many overcome single parent families, but nothing beats Christmas with parents and grandparents who have literally given birth to the family.

Homosexuals and the Activists will never know the truth, for they have chosen and live a life in which they never see the intricate dynamics lived between father, mother and the children.

If the American psychological association, psychiatric association, medical association and pediatricans agreed with you, I might as well.

You do not know what these people think. They all agree with me.
And again, if someone looks to a study to make decision about the proper development of children, it's obvious that person has not the knowledge or experience raising children to make such extreme decisions for children.

Let children speak, not researchers accredited by government.

Not a single major medical or psychological association agrees with you. The APA, AMA AAP, all agree that children do just fine in same sex households AND they ALL support adoption by gays.

Why, cause an activists says so, prove your contention. I knoe, you will use the liberal google search engine to link to a press release you mistake as science.

So go ahead, post your study or whatever. I will show the wholes in it.

 

[elektra]

Sad, I think it is beyond belief that people refuse to allow children to have a voice, children who are to be adopted.

A decent society would guarantee a mom and dad to orphaned children.

It is simple, a child learns from a healthy, natural family. A child needs a man and woman to learn. Sure, many overcome single parent families, but nothing beats Christmas with parents and grandparents who have literally given birth to the family.

Homosexuals and the Activists will never know the truth, for they have chosen and live a life in which they never see the intricate dynamics lived between father, mother and the children.

If the American psychological association, psychiatric association, medical association and pediatricans agreed with you, I might as well.

You do not know what these people think.
And again, if someone looks to a study to make decision about the proper development of children, it's obvious that person has not the knowledge or experience raising children to make such extreme decisions for children.

Let children speak, not researchers accredited by government.

Well, there are kids of gay parents who think their childhood was great. Legally, there has to be scientifically validated evidence. And the APAs and AMA are not govt tools.

Sad, I think it is beyond belief that people refuse to allow children to have a voice, children who are to be adopted.

A decent society would guarantee a mom and dad to orphaned children.

It is simple, a child learns from a healthy, natural family. A child needs a man and woman to learn. Sure, many overcome single parent families, but nothing beats Christmas with parents and grandparents who have literally given birth to the family.

Homosexuals and the Activists will never know the truth, for they have chosen and live a life in which they never see the intricate dynamics lived between father, mother and the children.

If the American psychological association, psychiatric association, medical association and pediatricans agreed with you, I might as well.

You do not know what these people think.
And again, if someone looks to a study to make decision about the proper development of children, it's obvious that person has not the knowledge or experience raising children to make such extreme decisions for children.

Let children speak, not researchers accredited by government.

Well, there are kids of gay parents who think their childhood was great. Legally, there has to be scientifically validated evidence. And the APAs and AMA are not govt tools.

There is no, "scientifically validated evidence", that children will choose two men in a homosexual relationship as parents.

So thank you for validating my post while destroying your own.

Let children decide who their parents are? Did doctors leave a sponge in your brain after surgery?

Yes, let orphaned children decide.

You prefer that homosexual men decide for the orphaned children.

Lots of intelligence in that idea. Homosexuals decide.

 

[bripat9643]

Rikurzhen, you posted "Why does society care that two people love each other? The legal and social benefits only kick in when kids are born." That's not correct. There are economic benefits to marriage for childless people in terms of employment benefits, social security, health care decision making ..... This was actually the basis for striking down DOMA, and there was no mention there of kids.

I apologize for not being clear. What I wrote was about how laws SHOULD be. Those economic benefits to marriage should not exist for couples without kids, for after all, marriage is about love. Society doesn't benefit when you love your spouse. Society benefits when you sacrifice and raise kids.

And gays, who can and do have children, get the goodies too, right?

Unless it's by artificial means, they aren't gays. They're bi-sexuals.

 

[Pop23]

Rikurzhen, you posted "Why does society care that two people love each other? The legal and social benefits only kick in when kids are born." That's not correct. There are economic benefits to marriage for childless people in terms of employment benefits, social security, health care decision making ..... This was actually the basis for striking down DOMA, and there was no mention there of kids.

I apologize for not being clear. What I wrote was about how laws SHOULD be. Those economic benefits to marriage should not exist for couples without kids, for after all, marriage is about love. Society doesn't benefit when you love your spouse. Society benefits when you sacrifice and raise kids.

Well, ok. But the laws exist. If laws only conveyed economic rights to child rearing couples, or laws conveyed no benefits at all, you'd maybe have a point. But that's not the law, and I really don't see any changes occurring.

You don't see changes occurring? I, and others, sure do. Let me explain how the changes play out.

Think of a baseball game. At the end of the game a MVP is selected and gets an award. Now inject liberal parents into the situation and at the end of the game every player gets a MVP award.

Those benefits to marriage now get extended to more and more groups, meaning those left out of the circle get more and more pissed off with subsidizing those in the circle. They could understand the benefits when they were focused on couples having kids, for with kids parents eat the cost of raising them and society, rather than the parents, gets huge financial benefits from the taxes those kids pay, but now the benefits go to people who love each other. The change won't be a clawback of benefits, it will be an extension of the same benefits to more and more groups until no one is left outside of the circle providing the subsidy.

The benefits will cease to be beneficial because any gain in one area will have to be offset by increased taxes and burdens in other areas due to the loss of subsidy from single people.

Don't forget, that only opposite sex couples must endure the expense and health risks of birth control.

 

[Pop23]

If the American psychological association, psychiatric association, medical association and pediatricans agreed with you, I might as well.

You do not know what these people think.
And again, if someone looks to a study to make decision about the proper development of children, it's obvious that person has not the knowledge or experience raising children to make such extreme decisions for children.

Let children speak, not researchers accredited by government.

Well, there are kids of gay parents who think their childhood was great. Legally, there has to be scientifically validated evidence. And the APAs and AMA are not govt tools.

If the American psychological association, psychiatric association, medical association and pediatricans agreed with you, I might as well.

You do not know what these people think.
And again, if someone looks to a study to make decision about the proper development of children, it's obvious that person has not the knowledge or experience raising children to make such extreme decisions for children.

Let children speak, not researchers accredited by government.

Well, there are kids of gay parents who think their childhood was great. Legally, there has to be scientifically validated evidence. And the APAs and AMA are not govt tools.

There is no, "scientifically validated evidence", that children will choose two men in a homosexual relationship as parents.

So thank you for validating my post while destroying your own.

Let children decide who their parents are? Did doctors leave a sponge in your brain after surgery?

Yes, let orphaned children decide.

You prefer that homosexual men decide for the orphaned children.

Lots of intelligence in that idea. Homosexuals decide.

Interesting, maybe a great experiment would be to inform central Americans that should they send their children across the border they will be adopted and raised by same sex couples.

I think we would see the flood dry up quickly.

 

[ShackledNation]

Yes Pop, we have sex, we have relationships and we have children. We also have legal civil marriage in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Our inability to procreate with each other, is not a consideration in whether or not we achieve marriage equality. Your strawman is irrelevant and your analogy way off. It is more like you wish to deny me a license because my car runs on something other than gasoline.

It may not be a consideration for you, but it is a consideration for the voters and for rational people. The is no rational basis to extend marriage to gay couples. None.

You have a faulty understanding of Constitutional Law. Laws must pass the rational basis standard, meaning there must be a rational basis for the law. Thus, laws banning same-sex marriage must have a rational basis for their existence. You have completely flipped the burden of proof from the government (defendents) to the plaintiffs. That is simply wrong.

There is no rational basis to discriminate against same-sex couples and deny them the right to marry. Procreation is irrelevant to who can marry.

 

[ShackledNation]

Don't forget, that only opposite sex couples must endure the expense and health risks of birth control.

False. Many women take birth-control to control their period. That includes lesbian couples.

 

[elektra]

Discrimination, any homosexual has the right to marry, they just do not have a right to change the meaning of words.

Family is now defined as any group of people who care about one another.

Children are now forced to live in Homosexual "families"

The children's rights are ignored as special privileges are given to people who define themselves by their sexual proclivities

 

[bripat9643]

Yes Pop, we have sex, we have relationships and we have children. We also have legal civil marriage in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Our inability to procreate with each other, is not a consideration in whether or not we achieve marriage equality. Your strawman is irrelevant and your analogy way off. It is more like you wish to deny me a license because my car runs on something other than gasoline.

It may not be a consideration for you, but it is a consideration for the voters and for rational people. The is no rational basis to extend marriage to gay couples. None.

You have a faulty understanding of Constitutional Law. Laws must pass the rational basis standard, meaning there must be a rational basis for the law. Thus, laws banning same-sex marriage must have a rational basis for their existence. You have completely flipped the burden of proof from the government (defendents) to the plaintiffs. That is simply wrong.

There is no rational basis to discriminate against same-sex couples and deny them the right to marry. Procreation is irrelevant to who can marry.

Spare me the "rational basis" crap. There are literally millions of laws on the books. Are you telling me they have all had the "rational basis" rule applied to them? Furthermore, there is a rational basis for excluding gays from marriage: they can't reproduce.

End of discussion.

 

[ShackledNation]

The meaning of words change. 100 years ago, marriage meant something entirely different than what it means today. Women were treated as property, for example. If you want to live in a bubble where nothing ever changes, too bad. Such a place does not exist.

Meanwhile, there is no rational basis to deny same-sex couples marriage license. Denying same-sex couples marriage licenses create demonstrable harms, but not a single demonstrable benefit.

 

[bripat9643]

The meaning of words change. 100 years ago, marriage meant something entirely different than what it means today. Women were treated as property, for example. If you want to live in a bubble where nothing ever changes, too bad. Such a place does not exist.

Meanwhile, there is no rational basis to deny same-sex couples marriage license. Denying same-sex couples marriage licenses create demonstrable harms, but not a single demonstrable benefit.

Allowing same sex marriages causes demonstrable harm. There is a perfectly rational basis for not allowing them: gays can't reproduce. Therefor, there is no reason to grant them the marriage franchise.

 

[bodecea]

Rikurzhen, you posted "Why does society care that two people love each other? The legal and social benefits only kick in when kids are born." That's not correct. There are economic benefits to marriage for childless people in terms of employment benefits, social security, health care decision making ..... This was actually the basis for striking down DOMA, and there was no mention there of kids.

I apologize for not being clear. What I wrote was about how laws SHOULD be. Those economic benefits to marriage should not exist for couples without kids, for after all, marriage is about love. Society doesn't benefit when you love your spouse. Society benefits when you sacrifice and raise kids.

And gays, who can and do have children, get the goodies too, right?

Not if they're human rights violators. If they adopt a child, then yes. If they enter their marriage with a child from a failed normal marriage, then yes. But purposely creating a child in order to deprive the child of its human rights, no, that cannot be encouraged.

Sorry...already done that...and our daughter is a beautiful child grown to an adult.

 

[elektra]

The meaning of words change. 100 years ago, marriage meant something entirely different than what it means today. Women were treated as property, for example. If you want to live in a bubble where nothing ever changes, too bad. Such a place does not exist.

Meanwhile, there is no rational basis to deny same-sex couples marriage license. Denying same-sex couples marriage licenses create demonstrable harms, but not a single demonstrable benefit.

Woman were treated like slaves?, another lie.

 

[bodecea]

The meaning of words change. 100 years ago, marriage meant something entirely different than what it means today. Women were treated as property, for example. If you want to live in a bubble where nothing ever changes, too bad. Such a place does not exist.

Meanwhile, there is no rational basis to deny same-sex couples marriage license. Denying same-sex couples marriage licenses create demonstrable harms, but not a single demonstrable benefit.

Allowing same sex marriages causes demonstrable harm. There is a perfectly rational basis for not allowing them: gays can't reproduce. Therefor, there is no reason to grant them the marriage franchise.

So...the ability to reproduce is a requirement for legal marriage? In what state?

 

[elektra]

The meaning of words change. 100 years ago, marriage meant something entirely different than what it means today. Women were treated as property, for example. If you want to live in a bubble where nothing ever changes, too bad. Such a place does not exist.

Meanwhile, there is no rational basis to deny same-sex couples marriage license. Denying same-sex couples marriage licenses create demonstrable harms, but not a single demonstrable benefit.

Allowing same sex marriages causes demonstrable harm. There is a perfectly rational basis for not allowing them: gays can't reproduce. Therefor, there is no reason to grant them the marriage franchise.

Yet the thread is about children, which is reason enough not to allow Homosexuals the privilege of adoption.