Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

[JakeStarkey]

I as a proud heterosexual denounce the hetero-fascism of a Sil and think the pictures above and how they affect you, Sil, are your problem.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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?

Truly married or the liars marriage?

 

[Rikurzhen]

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:

You're kidding me, right? You're going to twist reality based on that thin thread? Are you seriously asserting that a piece of a paper, a marriage license, changes the QUALITY of parents?

The sample here is parents. Some normal parents choose to get married and some choose to remain common law. Apparently whatever drives that choice is also correlated with child outcomes. That same divide presumably exists in the homosexual community. Those homosexuals who would have liked to have gotten "married" couldn't but that doesn't change them into becoming better parents.

Why did you even bother posting such a weak-assed rebuttal?

 

[Rikurzhen]

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.

He's likely motivated by the fact that that mother and her children are going to become public welfare cases.

 

[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?

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

If you and I are friends, or cousins, and I give you a $100,000 gift, then you have to pay taxes on that. If your spouse transfers the money to you, no taxes. If you leave me a bequest in your will, I have to pay taxes on that bequest, your spouse doesn't.

You and I both pay social security taxes. If I die and I'm single, that's the end of the benefits. If you die, and you're married, your spouse get's some kind of survivor benefit.

At work, if I was a single guy I'd be paying some kind of premium for health care, but you as a married person get to tack on your spouse for coverage. What does your spouse have to do with our common workplace? Your spouse is nothing to me but now we're in the same risk pool.

There are plenty of benefits that society confers on married people that it doesn't confer on single people. There's no return to society if the only reason you're married is because you love your spouse. Why should I be made poorer so that you can celebrate your love for your spouse?

Children are not the natural outcome of being married.

Throughout history, when people have had sex on a very frequent basis, children are the natural outcome. Someone should have taught you the birds and the bees.

There are many couples who get married and have no intention of having kids.

They're freeriding on the bargain society has made with married couples. Mostly they're noise in the system.

And there are many couples who have kids without any intention of getting married.

If I offer to give you $100 and you choose not to take it, I can't force you to accept a benefit. Same applies here.

To mix a natural biological function with a societal creation of mankind doesn't make any sense.

Sure it does. You have a lunch hour at work, don't you?

 

[Silhouette]

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?

If you and I are friends, or cousins, and I give you a $100,000 gift, then you have to pay taxes on that. If your spouse transfers the money to you, no taxes. If you leave me a bequest in your will, I have to pay taxes on that bequest, your spouse doesn't.

You and I both pay social security taxes. If I die and I'm single, that's the end of the benefits. If you die, and you're married, your spouse get's some kind of survivor benefit.

At work, if I was a single guy I'd be paying some kind of premium for health care, but you as a married person get to tack on your spouse for coverage. What does your spouse have to do with our common workplace? Your spouse is nothing to me but now we're in the same risk pool.

There are plenty of benefits that society confers on married people that it doesn't confer on single people. There's no return to society if the only reason you're married is because you love your spouse. Why should I be made poorer so that you can celebrate your love for your spouse?

Children are not the natural outcome of being married.

Throughout history, when people have had sex on a very frequent basis, children are the natural outcome. Someone should have taught you the birds and the bees.

There are many couples who get married and have no intention of having kids.

They're freeriding on the bargain society has made with married couples. Mostly they're noise in the system.

And there are many couples who have kids without any intention of getting married.

If I offer to give you $100 and you choose not to take it, I can't force you to accept a benefit. Same applies here.

To mix a natural biological function with a societal creation of mankind doesn't make any sense.

Sure it does. You have a lunch hour at work, don't you?

Good points bro.

 

[Plasmaball]

I believe that, as usual, the poll is skewed and inaccurate.

People have kids. Some people have spouses and some do not. Some people are good parents, some are not.

Yes, of course kids are and should be part of the conversation.

Women who have kids without having a spouse are bad parents. Their kids grow up to inhabit state penitentiaries. They are the main cause of all the social pathologies of this nation.

well this isnt true, but what else is new from you

 

[Silhouette]

I as a proud heterosexual denounce the hetero-fascism of a Sil and think the pictures above and how they affect you, Sil, are your problem.

It's weird but "the pictures above" didn't show up in your post.

You mean these that speak quite plainly for themselves? You don't need to be anyone but with a brain to notice these folks and those in that subculture who support them or do not denounce them at least, doing this in full daylight, sober, as a matter of "pride" on a public thoroughfare where they know, hope and anticipate kids of all ages will be watching passing by [rainbow colors...c'mon...] have no place with children behind closed doors...

 

[bripat9643]

I believe that, as usual, the poll is skewed and inaccurate.

People have kids. Some people have spouses and some do not. Some people are good parents, some are not.

Yes, of course kids are and should be part of the conversation.

Women who have kids without having a spouse are bad parents. Their kids grow up to inhabit state penitentiaries. They are the main cause of all the social pathologies of this nation.

well this isnt true, but what else is new from you

It is true. there are numerous government statistics that support the point. Unwed mothers are the single greatest social pathology affecting this nation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil posts pictures of one sort yet ignores the others, and somehow thinks they are probative of anything?

bripat, the anarcho commie, is calling for big government action on unwed mothers.

The anti marriage equality grouping is becoming very strange.

 

[Plasmaball]

I believe that, as usual, the poll is skewed and inaccurate.

People have kids. Some people have spouses and some do not. Some people are good parents, some are not.

Yes, of course kids are and should be part of the conversation.

Women who have kids without having a spouse are bad parents. Their kids grow up to inhabit state penitentiaries. They are the main cause of all the social pathologies of this nation.

well this isnt true, but what else is new from you

It is true. there are numerous government statistics that support the point. Unwed mothers are the single greatest social pathology affecting this nation.

nope

 

[bendog]

Let's give the last two Pope's a shout out here!

 

[Seawytch]

You're kidding me, right? You're going to twist reality based on that thin thread? Are you seriously asserting that a piece of a paper, a marriage license, changes the QUALITY of parents?

The sample here is parents. Some normal parents choose to get married and some choose to remain common law. Apparently whatever drives that choice is also correlated with child outcomes. That same divide presumably exists in the homosexual community. Those homosexuals who would have liked to have gotten "married" couldn't but that doesn't change them into becoming better parents.

Why did you even bother posting such a weak-assed rebuttal?

Your original contention was what was weak and yes, civil marriage does effect the financial situation of the couple.

 

[Rikurzhen]

You're kidding me, right? You're going to twist reality based on that thin thread? Are you seriously asserting that a piece of a paper, a marriage license, changes the QUALITY of parents?

The sample here is parents. Some normal parents choose to get married and some choose to remain common law. Apparently whatever drives that choice is also correlated with child outcomes. That same divide presumably exists in the homosexual community. Those homosexuals who would have liked to have gotten "married" couldn't but that doesn't change them into becoming better parents.

Why did you even bother posting such a weak-assed rebuttal?

Your original contention was what was weak and yes, civil marriage does effect the financial situation of the couple.

We're talking about the children's educational outcomes. If you get a 5% raise at work that doesn't translate into your kid doing 5% better in high school.

A marriage license doesn't change the QUALITY of a parent. A tax savings from a government marriage benefit doesn't change the kid's performance at school.

You would have done better to simply have remained silent than to embark on this sorry exercise of excuse making.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Gays shouldn't marry period. They definitely should not be raising children.

Well, we marry and we raise children. What are you going to do about it? Cry?

 

[bodecea]

You're kidding me, right? You're going to twist reality based on that thin thread? Are you seriously asserting that a piece of a paper, a marriage license, changes the QUALITY of parents?

The sample here is parents. Some normal parents choose to get married and some choose to remain common law. Apparently whatever drives that choice is also correlated with child outcomes. That same divide presumably exists in the homosexual community. Those homosexuals who would have liked to have gotten "married" couldn't but that doesn't change them into becoming better parents.

Why did you even bother posting such a weak-assed rebuttal?

Your original contention was what was weak and yes, civil marriage does effect the financial situation of the couple.

We're talking about the children's educational outcomes. If you get a 5% raise at work that doesn't translate into your kid doing 5% better in high school.

A marriage license doesn't change the QUALITY of a parent. A tax savings from a government marriage benefit doesn't change the kid's performance at school.

You would have done better to simply have remained silent than to embark on this sorry exercise of excuse making.

A marriage license changes the legal protection of children. That is a good thing. But the anti-gay marriage people don't give a fig about that.

 

[bripat9643]

I believe that, as usual, the poll is skewed and inaccurate.

People have kids. Some people have spouses and some do not. Some people are good parents, some are not.

Yes, of course kids are and should be part of the conversation.

Women who have kids without having a spouse are bad parents. Their kids grow up to inhabit state penitentiaries. They are the main cause of all the social pathologies of this nation.

well this isnt true, but what else is new from you

It is true. there are numerous government statistics that support the point. Unwed mothers are the single greatest social pathology affecting this nation.

nope

Yep.

 

[DGS49]

In spite of various bogus studies to the contrary, there is still not enough history of gay parenting to draw any valid conclusions about the long-term affect of same-sex parenting. Most rational people would incline that a "normal" household is preferable, but one can always point out examples to the contrary. Kid better off with a couple of "loving" dykes or a couple of hetero-alcoholic abusers?

Unfortunately, The Government can do very little to "ensure" a beneficial and nurturing home for children, at any stage of life. Any crack-whore (or whatever the contemporary equivalent is) can pop out kids to her heart's content and those kids are generally condemned to a life of misery and deprivation, regardless of anything within Government's power.

Although I personally support "gay marriage," it will be a litmus test for the members of the USSC. There is no rational argument that can even be made in support of a "Constitutional right" to marry someone of the same gender. At BEST, they can say that every State and the Feds must recognize the legal marriages of other states - and they have already said this in at least one case challenging DOMA. But can there be any doubt whatsoever that four of the black-robed bastards will find such a right?

No. They will find that right - perhaps hidden for 225+ years amongst the emanations and penumbras, like the so-called "right of privacy" was.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The document is meant to help Americans adjust to changing times.

So, crazy anti marriage equality folks, adjust or bust.

 

[bripat9643]

The document is meant to help Americans adjust to changing times.

So, crazy anti marriage equality folks, adjust or bust.

If you're referring to the Constitution, you're wrong. The document was meant to keep government weak and limited. It failed.