Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

[Rikurzhen]

No, kids are not part of the equation of marriage. And your poll is skewed and biased.

If the children are in a bad home, get them out. Whether or not the parent is single or gay doesn't mean anything.

Kids are the central focus of marriage. Society subsidizes marriage. I have absolutely zero interest in subsidizing someone's marriage just because they love someone. Love is a personal matter, but social support involves an obligation.

As for pulling kids from homes, we've already gone too far on that front - child social service agents are often causing more family damage than they prevent. Normal parents are better than homosexual parents.

Your post is all over the place. I'm not even sure what point you were trying to make.

I was just trying to respond to the points you raised. Children are at the heart of marriage, so I disagreeing with your claim that children have no part of the equation of marriage.

A childless married couple doesn't deserve any recognition or reward or benefit under law from society. We grant these based on the old model of children being a natural outcome of being married. Our laws and social institutions are now out of step with technology and social customs. The fact that you love your spouse is a private affair and isn't deserving of any special benefit from society. Your state of being married doesn't return any benefit to strangers who support you via marriage benefits. When you have children, that's when you're giving something back to society and so also deserve recognition and encouragement and benefit from the rest of us.

Is my argument clearer now?

It's been abundantly clear that your argument fails.


Procreation is not a prerequisite for marriage.


In every hearing on the subject those hostile to the equal protection rights of same-sex couples have failed time and again to produce any objective, documented evidence that children in families headed by same-sex parents are in any way 'at risk.' Consequently, the status of children is in no way relevant to the issue of allowing same-sex couples to access to marriage law or to be allowed to either have children of their own or adopt, where the appropriateness of a given adoption should be determined on a case by case basis.

I have to admire chutzpah. If you can't make it, then fake it. Failed to produce huh? Here's a massive study from Canada which looked at the issue honestly and wasn't led by ideological researchers who cooked the books. This sample size here is 20% of Canadians.

Almost all studies of same-sex parenting have concluded there is “no difference” in a range of outcome measures for children who live in a household with same-sex parents compared to children living with married opposite-sex parents. Recently, some work based on the US census has suggested otherwise, but those studies have considerable drawbacks. Here, a 20 % sample of the 2006 Canada census is used to identify self-reported children living with same-sex parents, and to examine the association of household type with children’s high school graduation rates. This large random sample allows for control of parental marital status, distinguishes between gay and lesbian families, and is large enough to evaluate differences in gender between parents and children. Children living with gay and lesbian families in 2006 were about 65 % as likely to graduate compared to children living in opposite sex marriage families. Daughters of same-sex parents do considerably worse than sons.​

Last, a childless married couple is deserving of the same recognition, reward, and benefit from society as a fact of law, where to argue otherwise is ignorant and unfounded.

Who gives a damn about fact of law? Fact of law can be changed by legislature. Oops, there goes your argument.

Incorrect.

It's not 'my' argument, its the argument made before, and held up by, both state and Federal courts.

The courts have thoroughly reviewed the issue and have determined that there is no objective, documented evidence in support of the notion that children are 'at risk' in families headed by same-sex parents.

For example:

"A cross-sectional study of children raised by gay couples, the largest of its kind, found that the kids are all right — and are, by some measures, doing even better than their peers. Conducted by University of Melbourne researchers, the survey followed 315 same-sex couples, mostly lesbians, and their 500 children, using a variety of standardized measures to compare their health and well-being to the general Australian population."

You see, that's the problem, your largest study is 315 couples, while the Census-based studies capture millions of people.

 

[Seawytch]

Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

No.

It's a red herring contrived by demagogues on the social right who know they've lost the argument.

I must respectfully disagree. Children ARE part of the marriage equality discussion...just ask Justice Kennedy.

"DOMA humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives."

 

[Seawytch]

I have to admire chutzpah. If you can't make it, then fake it. Failed to produce huh? Here's a massive study from Canada which looked at the issue honestly and wasn't led by ideological researchers who cooked the books. This sample size here is 20% of Canadians.

Almost all studies of same-sex parenting have concluded there is “no difference” in a range of outcome measures for children who live in a household with same-sex parents compared to children living with married opposite-sex parents. Recently, some work based on the US census has suggested otherwise, but those studies have considerable drawbacks. Here, a 20 % sample of the 2006 Canada census is used to identify self-reported children living with same-sex parents, and to examine the association of household type with children’s high school graduation rates. This large random sample allows for control of parental marital status, distinguishes between gay and lesbian families, and is large enough to evaluate differences in gender between parents and children. Children living with gay and lesbian families in 2006 were about 65 % as likely to graduate compared to children living in opposite sex marriage families. Daughters of same-sex parents do considerably worse than sons.​

The Study Doesn't Examine Children Raised By Married Same-Sex Parents. As The New Civil Rights Movement noted, same-sex marriage wasn't legal Canada until 2005 - just one year before the census on which Allen bases his findings. As a result, his study actually compares the children raised by stable, married heterosexual parents with children almost entirely by unmarried same-sex parents.

In fact, when comparing children raised by same-sex parents to opposite sex common law parents - a more appropriate comparison - the children of gay parents actually perform better, with children of lesbian parents performing only slightly worse:

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Europeans got it right. They're protecting the human rights of children. It this sounds outlandish to you then you need to analyze the implications of what is actually taking place. First think about this scenario:

You and your spouse arrive at the maternity ward to have a child. Your baby is born and put in the nursery while the mother recovers. When you leave the hospital you are assigned a random baby, but not your baby. What harm has been done to you or to the baby you gave birth to?​

So we should remove children from the custody of unmarried parents and give them to a married couple who want a child?

In the child's best interest?

Yes. Women who have children out of wedlock that they can't support should have them taken away and put up for adoption.

LOLOL, the extremist anti government guy on the board wants big government to decide whether or not a mother can keep her children based on her marital status.

You are indeed a marvel.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Homosexuals want to play house perverting the intent of nature and nature's God. Then they want to pervert the laws of nature and say they are parents.

I really don't care what they do to each other, but leading Children to hell, and/or using them as props to play Ward and Jude Cleaver is sick.

This is an evil world and I realize that there are things I might not be able to change right now; the redeeming thought is that their children will hate them.

And this is why we have a Constitution and its case law, to protect citizens from having this sort of ignorance, fear, stupidity, and hate codified.

CLICK You just got trapped.

Locked in on the word "hate" did we?

I was talking about the common experience of parents and teenagers. This phenomena knows no boundaries.

Fools rush in...

You were exhibiting your hatred of gay Americans, which you're at liberty to express, just not codify.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Europeans got it right. They're protecting the human rights of children. It this sounds outlandish to you then you need to analyze the implications of what is actually taking place. First think about this scenario:

You and your spouse arrive at the maternity ward to have a child. Your baby is born and put in the nursery while the mother recovers. When you leave the hospital you are assigned a random baby, but not your baby. What harm has been done to you or to the baby you gave birth to?​

So we should remove children from the custody of unmarried parents and give them to a married couple who want a child?

In the child's best interest?

Yes. Women who have children out of wedlock that they can't support should have them taken away and put up for adoption.

Their civil rights be damned

 

[bripat9643]

The Europeans got it right. They're protecting the human rights of children. It this sounds outlandish to you then you need to analyze the implications of what is actually taking place. First think about this scenario:

You and your spouse arrive at the maternity ward to have a child. Your baby is born and put in the nursery while the mother recovers. When you leave the hospital you are assigned a random baby, but not your baby. What harm has been done to you or to the baby you gave birth to?​

So we should remove children from the custody of unmarried parents and give them to a married couple who want a child?

In the child's best interest?

Yes. Women who have children out of wedlock that they can't support should have them taken away and put up for adoption.

Their civil rights be damned

You have no right to abuse a child, and if you can't afford to cloth, house and feed a child, then you are abusing it. There's a reason the children of unwed mothers grow up to populate the state penitentiaries. Excellent parental care isn't one of them.

 

[bripat9643]

The Europeans got it right. They're protecting the human rights of children. It this sounds outlandish to you then you need to analyze the implications of what is actually taking place. First think about this scenario:

You and your spouse arrive at the maternity ward to have a child. Your baby is born and put in the nursery while the mother recovers. When you leave the hospital you are assigned a random baby, but not your baby. What harm has been done to you or to the baby you gave birth to?​

So we should remove children from the custody of unmarried parents and give them to a married couple who want a child?

In the child's best interest?

Yes. Women who have children out of wedlock that they can't support should have them taken away and put up for adoption.

LOLOL, the extremist anti government guy on the board wants big government to decide whether or not a mother can keep her children based on her marital status.

You are indeed a marvel.

The government already decides, nimrod. What do you propose, leaving children in the hands of child abusers?

 

[RKMBrown]

With 32 states pushing the US Supreme Court to make a final decision on gay marriage, how heavily will the welfare of children weigh in on that debate?

Are children a part of the gay marriage discussion? Well, the Europeans think so... European Court Rules Gay Marriage not a Human Right ... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

What do you believe? Vote the poll.

If you could prove that homosexual couples are a harm to children... then I'd be good with continuing the ban. However, since homosexual couples are not a harm to children, or anyone else for that matter,... I'm not good with continuing the ban. This supposed harm that gays cause children, which is espoused by the homophobic bigots, is nothing more than a straw-man argument that these bigots use to deflect from their hatred of gays.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A discussion of marriage equality subsumes a discussion of children.

The real issue of child safety is that each child must be protected better from the predation of the hundreds of thousands of adult abusers, whose numbers are overwhelming heterosexual in orientation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Europeans got it right. They're protecting the human rights of children. It this sounds outlandish to you then you need to analyze the implications of what is actually taking place. First think about this scenario:

You and your spouse arrive at the maternity ward to have a child. Your baby is born and put in the nursery while the mother recovers. When you leave the hospital you are assigned a random baby, but not your baby. What harm has been done to you or to the baby you gave birth to?​

So we should remove children from the custody of unmarried parents and give them to a married couple who want a child?

In the child's best interest?

Yes. Women who have children out of wedlock that they can't support should have them taken away and put up for adoption.

LOLOL, the extremist anti government guy on the board wants big government to decide whether or not a mother can keep her children based on her marital status.

You are indeed a marvel.

The government already decides, nimrod. What do you propose, leaving children in the hands of child abusers?

The anarcho commie supports big government.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

No, kids are not part of the equation of marriage. And your poll is skewed and biased.

If the children are in a bad home, get them out. Whether or not the parent is single or gay doesn't mean anything.

Kids are the central focus of marriage. Society subsidizes marriage. I have absolutely zero interest in subsidizing someone's marriage just because they love someone. Love is a personal matter, but social support involves an obligation.

As for pulling kids from homes, we've already gone too far on that front - child social service agents are often causing more family damage than they prevent. Normal parents are better than homosexual parents.

Your post is all over the place. I'm not even sure what point you were trying to make.

I was just trying to respond to the points you raised. Children are at the heart of marriage, so I disagreeing with your claim that children have no part of the equation of marriage.

A childless married couple doesn't deserve any recognition or reward or benefit under law from society. We grant these based on the old model of children being a natural outcome of being married. Our laws and social institutions are now out of step with technology and social customs. The fact that you love your spouse is a private affair and isn't deserving of any special benefit from society. Your state of being married doesn't return any benefit to strangers who support you via marriage benefits. When you have children, that's when you're giving something back to society and so also deserve recognition and encouragement and benefit from the rest of us.

Is my argument clearer now?

What "special benefits" are you talking about? Taxes?

Children are not the natural outcome of being married. There are many couples who get married and have no intention of having kids. And there are many couples who have kids without any intention of getting married. To mix a natural biological function with a societal creation of mankind doesn't make any sense.

 

[Silhouette]

If you could prove that homosexual couples are a harm to children... then I'd be good with continuing the ban. However, since homosexual couples are not a harm to children, or anyone else for that matter,... I'm not good with continuing the ban. This supposed harm that gays cause children, which is espoused by the homophobic bigots, is nothing more than a straw-man argument that these bigots use to deflect from their hatred of gays.

How about pictures? Do you consider pictures proof of a point? Anyone who can look at the pictures below and say to themselves "yep, those folks should be around kids behind closed doors" [perk of marriage in Utah and other states is adoption] is in deep deep denial and needs to get themself to a therapist ASAP. Their voice in the debate on gay marriage is not allowed. This needs to be a debate between sane people. A sane person does not look at these pictures and conclude the participants or any other member of that subculture that doesn't stand up to denounce these parades, belong having custody of minor children... [Remember, these are some of the tamer pictures. USMB got mad at me for posting the nude male child molestors with the pregnant lesbian on parade, calmly walking down main street in the middle of the day with the public looking on]

 

[Wacky Quacky]

If you could prove that homosexual couples are a harm to children... then I'd be good with continuing the ban. However, since homosexual couples are not a harm to children, or anyone else for that matter,... I'm not good with continuing the ban. This supposed harm that gays cause children, which is espoused by the homophobic bigots, is nothing more than a straw-man argument that these bigots use to deflect from their hatred of gays.

How about pictures? Do you consider pictures proof of a point? Anyone who can look at the pictures below and say to themselves "yep, those folks should be around kids behind closed doors" [perk of marriage in Utah and other states is adoption] is in deep deep denial and needs to get themself to a therapist ASAP. Their voice in the debate on gay marriage is not allowed. This needs to be a debate between sane people. A sane person does not look at these pictures and conclude the participants or any other member of that subculture that doesn't stand up to denounce these parades, belong having custody of minor children... [Remember, these are some of the tamer pictures. USMB got mad at me for posting the nude male child molestors with the pregnant lesbian on parade, calmly walking down main street in the middle of the day with the public looking on]

Bringing out your secret stash of fap material again, huh. You must really love staring at those pictures to have them saved on your hard drive and whip them out at a moments notice.

And you're right, straight people would never do something like that...............or will they?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The pictures are a slash burn commentary to the hatred given to homosexuals.

The same apply as to the heterosexual display of stupidity at mardi gras or Miley above.

 

[Silhouette]

If you could prove that homosexual couples are a harm to children... then I'd be good with continuing the ban. However, since homosexual couples are not a harm to children, or anyone else for that matter,... I'm not good with continuing the ban. This supposed harm that gays cause children, which is espoused by the homophobic bigots, is nothing more than a straw-man argument that these bigots use to deflect from their hatred of gays.

How about pictures? Do you consider pictures proof of a point? Anyone who can look at the pictures below and say to themselves "yep, those folks should be around kids behind closed doors" [perk of marriage in Utah and other states is adoption] is in deep deep denial and needs to get themself to a therapist ASAP. Their voice in the debate on gay marriage is not allowed. This needs to be a debate between sane people. A sane person does not look at these pictures and conclude the participants or any other member of that subculture that doesn't stand up to denounce these parades, belong having custody of minor children... [Remember, these are some of the tamer pictures. USMB got mad at me for posting the nude male child molestors with the pregnant lesbian on parade, calmly walking down main street in the middle of the day with the public looking on]

Bringing out your secret stash of fap material again, huh. You must really love staring at those pictures to have them saved on your hard drive and whip them out at a moments notice.

And you're right, straight people would never do something like that...............or will they?

That is a broadcast that parents can control. They cannot control what their child sees as they drive by main street. A burlesque show for adults is not the same as a gay pride parade for kids of all ages.

 

[Silhouette]

The pictures are a slash burn commentary to the hatred given to homosexuals.

The same apply as to the heterosexual display of stupidity at mardi gras or Miley above.

The pictures are what they are. You don't like what they display, obviously. And like I said, these are some of the tamer ones.

What you should be saying instead is "I as a gay person utterly denounce what goes on in gay pride parades all across the country in same or similar fashion. And I also denounce the legal diefication of Harvey Milk as representing the LGBT movement "across the nation and the world"..

 

[JakeStarkey]

What I am saying is that I and MDK are outing your hypocrisy, which has become increasingly easier to do the last few months.

The justice will accept the Utah case, out of the several, at the end of the month for next year.

Marriage equality will be the law of the land before the end of June 2015.

 

[RKMBrown]

If you could prove that homosexual couples are a harm to children... then I'd be good with continuing the ban. However, since homosexual couples are not a harm to children, or anyone else for that matter,... I'm not good with continuing the ban. This supposed harm that gays cause children, which is espoused by the homophobic bigots, is nothing more than a straw-man argument that these bigots use to deflect from their hatred of gays.

How about pictures? Do you consider pictures proof of a point?

I do not consider pictures of random lewd and lascivious behavior by certain individuals as representative of that entire group. Do you? Do you take blame for all of the lewd and lascivious behavior of heterosexuals? Your post is asinine. But then why am I not surprised?

Being gay does not mean someone is lewd or lascivious. That you consider all gays to be lewd or lascivious by default really just points to your bigoted homophobia.

 

[RKMBrown]

The pictures are a slash burn commentary to the hatred given to homosexuals.

The same apply as to the heterosexual display of stupidity at mardi gras or Miley above.

The pictures are what they are. You don't like what they display, obviously. And like I said, these are some of the tamer ones.

What you should be saying instead is "I as a gay person utterly denounce what goes on in gay pride parades all across the country in same or similar fashion. And I also denounce the legal diefication of Harvey Milk as representing the LGBT movement "across the nation and the world"..

I denounce you and all other homophobic bigots like you. People like you are an embarrassment to the human race. Does that make you feel better?