How Did this Happen? Why Same-Sex Marriage Makes Sense to So Many

[Mordecai]

Vance just attributed the destruction of Pompeii to the city's toleration of gays.

Yes, that was a weaker part of his premise, although I would say "normalization" and not "toleration," for obvious reasons. To normalize homosexuality doesn't make sense, and that's what you're talking about, in fact. Your loose usage of the word toleration is a tired ploy.

So God can and will cause a the destruction of the men, women and children living in Pompeii, but won't cause the death of American soldiers. Well, I for one am relieved to know that their are some limits to his wrath. Thank you for clearing that up.

I'm not saying I agree with the conclusion. I'm just saying he has a case. Now that I think about it, suggesting that Pompei was destroyed by God isn't actually very doctrinally sound. If we follow the scriptures, nations that are destroyed by God due to wickedness are warned first, so they have a chance to repent and be saved. I don't know of Pompei being warned by prophets.

Furthermore, since continuing to breathe is God-given, scripturally speaking, we don't have a right to not be killed by God, should he see it as a long-term good for us to die. God has every right to make life and death decisions, each of which are for the long-term benefit of mankind. Your moral indignation at God doing good is short-sighted and based on human morality. Humans can't see the future and didn't create themselves, so they shouldn't play God. God, obviously, can play God all He wants, seeing as He made us, has mankind's long-term good in mind and can see the future.

Personally, I think that a society that normalizes homosexuality will crumble at a faster rate than other societies for a number of reasons and doesn't require God's intervention at all.

So where were these experts when Prop 8 advocates put on their case in court.

There are no thorough, methodologically sound studies showing that homosexuals are equal to heterosexual couples. That said, the few studies that have been done, as flawed as they are, also ignore the fact that they are only comparing lesbians to straight couples. Straight couples often involve step-fathers, who are the most notorious for child abuse, statistically speaking. It's not a fair comparison, if you take that into account. Homosexual males need to be studied as parents on a broad scale and compared to heterosexual couples, in order for the studies to mean anything with regard to the "gay marriage" debate. However, the studies proving that biological parents are superior to step-parents are numerous. In homosexual couples, there are never two biological parents, which means that logically, their children will be at a disadvantage. That, sadly, is of no concern to the "gay mafia" as Mark Levine calls them.

[Jason]

If that has occurred, and it may have following a divorce from an abusive spouse, it only occurred after a judicial finding that striping custodial rights of the parent(s) in the best interest of the child.

So even a rare exception to the usual manner in which gays adopt children does not support a claimed need to ban gay marriage.

Ah, but your argument was that "They are not 'taken away' in any meaningful, objectionable problematic sense." I'm sure the parent who lost custody found that it was a "meaningful, objectional, and problematic" experience.

[Zeta-Flux]

Then, I don't understand your point.

What is the rational connection between your desire that parents raise their biological offspring and gay marriage.

Namely, gay marriage prevents it. It prevents the two biological parents from becoming married so that they can raise any children they conceive together.

As indicated gay couples do not take raise children that would otherwise be raised by their biological parents.

This is a false statement. Marriage is a monogamous institution in this country, and thus those who are bound to their gay partners are *prevented* by that very institution from forming marriages with the other person who created their child.

But the fact that you thought I was calling for people to stop having children, and that those children's lives were worthless, speaks loads about your desire to have a real conversation. As I said, I'm done here.

Best wishes,

Zeta-Flux

[Jaybear]

Namely, gay marriage prevents it. It prevents the two biological parents from becoming married so that they can raise any children they conceive together.

This is a false statement. Marriage is a monogamous institution in this country, and thus those who are bound to their gay partners are *prevented* by that very institution from forming marriages with the other person who created their child.

I see. Your point is that one of the partners of a gay couple who goes to extraordinary length to conceive a child, can't marry the surrogate/sperm donor and raise the child, if the gay couple is legally married at the time.

Well that is true. But then again, its not as if one of them would be marrying the surrogate/sperm donor if they were not married. Or if one wanted to, but was married, he/she could always get a divorce.

But the fact that you thought I was calling for people to stop having children, and that those children's lives were worthless, speaks loads about your desire to have a real conversation. As I said, I'm done here.

Well in my defense, who could have guessed that your real concern was about the surrogate/sperm donors.

[Daniel2]

Gay marriage prevents... the two biological parents from becoming married so that they can raise any children they conceive together.

This statement is as patently untrue as it would be to try to assert that "Straight marriage between infertile persons prevents... the two biological parents from becoming married so that they can raise any children they conceive together."

I'd ask for a CFR on cases which demonstrate what you're trying to suggest--cases in which "two biological parents were 'prevented from becoming married so they could raise any children they concieved together' because of gay marriage."

Marriage is a monogamous institution in this country, and thus those who are bound to their gay partners are *prevented* by that very institution from forming marriages with the other person who created their child.

The statement "marriage is a monogomous institution in this country" is vague. Are you speaking of the reality of religious marriage? Or the reality of civil marriage? (So far as civil marriage is concerned, I think it's demonstrably evident that there is no legal expectation or requirement for "monogomy" within a civil marriage).

The latter half of your statement (that "those who are bound to their gay partners are *prevented* by that very institution from forming marriages with the other person who created their child") actually sounds more like a condemnation of egg/sperm donation and/or surrogacy (regardless of the gender of the infertile parents), rather than gay marriage.

It also ignores the reality of the thousands of children who have been abandoned by their biological parents (whether due to abandonment, financial inability to raise the children, unhealthy parents who should not raise children, death, etc) but are in need of loving adoptive parents to take them into their homes and make them their own family--in other words, you also seem to be condemning willing adoptive parents for "preventing biological parents from forming marriages" who never are going to get married anyway or have been deemed by the state to be unfit parents, regardless of their marital status. Similarly, then, it is a condemnation of adoption (regardless of the gender of the infertile parents), rather than gay marriage.

In other words, what you've said seems to be inadequate in dealing with the realities of the needs of actual children, unfit biological parents, and bioloical parents who have no desire to be parents and are unwilling to get married in the first place--none of which are exclusively related to or prevented by allowing gay couples to marry, and most of which are all occuring in far greater numbers due to straight parents who wish to conceive or adopt (and yet, in your words, are still "preventing biological parents from marrying and raising their biological children together").

My view,

Darin

[thesometimesaint]

Darin:

Biological fact in humans it takes one male and one female to make babies. Exclusively homosexual couples can not reproduce.

[Jaybear]

I'd ask for a CFR on cases which demonstrate what you're trying to suggest--cases in which "two biological parents were 'prevented from becoming married so they could raise any children they concieved together' because of gay marriage."

The argument is purely technically. If the gay couple is married, they are legally prevented because of bigamy laws from marrying the surrogate/sperm donor.

Playing devil's advocate, the better argument, which begins with the premise that children are better off raised by their biological parents is to say that (1) Gay marriage leads to societal tolerance towards gays; (2) Societal intolerance encourages gays to pretend to be hetersexual, which includes marriage and family; ergo (3) gay marriages will lead to fewer gays conceiving and raising children in faux heterosexual relationships, and would even encourage existing closeted gays and lesbians to leave their sham marriage.

[Daniel2]

Biological fact in humans it takes one male and one female to make babies. Exclusively homosexual couples can not reproduce.

Hey, sometimesaint,

Yes, current medical capabilities require one male and one femail to make babies, though it seems clear that soon, medical advances will likely enable same-sex couples to procreate (requiring genetic material from only two men; or requiring genetic material from only two women).

Despite both your point and mine, above--I don't believe either of our points about procreation is a rational basis for either preventing OR granting same-sex couples the right to civilly marry.

I firmly believe that, as a general rule, civil marriage of a child's parents is clearly in the best interests of children (although there are some obvious exceptions, such as abuse, neglect, child endangerment, etc).

I also firmly believe that civil marriage exists independant of the parental status of spouses (that is, infertile/barren/childless couples can and should be able to civilly marry); and parenting exists independant of the marital status of the parents (that is, parents are parents, regardless of whether or not they are legally married).

In other words, while marriage clearly benefits most children, marriage is and should not be dependant upon having or raising children.

Darin

[thesometimesaint]

Darin:

Always good to talk with you.

Morality aside for moment, the idea that sometime in the future we will be able synthetically clone two human sperm together, create a successful artificial womb, and a host of other daunting technological problem. There would be no evolutionary benefit to do so.

Nearly 10,000 years of recorded human history is not something to lightly toss away. Even with all of its problems over those millenia, marriage between a man and a woman in a community of married parents has repeatedly shown to be the most successful strategy for the raising of children.

To get into morality side for just a moment. I personally don't care if someone "does it" with a tree. Speaking as as a Social Worker(albeit a retired one) if they were come to me branch in hand seeking advice on getting married. We'd have a nice long talk about boundaries, informed consent, emotional transference to inanimate objects, and splinters in uncomfortable places. Moreover the LDS, and most other religions and cultures do have have standing Scripture that would preclude such, and any such actions, with anything other than between a opposite sexed married couple.

I further believe that Civil Unions as legalized by the State of California answers the desire of same sex partners, and meets all the legal definitions of marriage without the formal revocation of the meaning of the word. It could be called a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for all the legal difference it would make.

I think that because of the commitment required to raise children to be happy productive adults marriage is a necessary ingredient. Infertility, divorce, and death are merely exceptions that prove the rule. I won't even get into the effects of divorce, and death of a parent has on children.

[Daniel2]

And it's always a breath of fresh air to speak with you, too, sometimesaint.

Morality aside for moment, the idea that sometime in the future we will be able synthetically clone two human sperm together, create a successful artificial womb, and a host of other daunting technological problem. There would be no evolutionary benefit to do so.

I believe it's debatable whether there would be no evolutionary benefits to the reproductive technologies you describe. Even so, "evolutionary benefits" are not really something I feel the need to champion. I think human evolution has proved itself a success, and would suggest that most of us (speaking of humanity) do not form familial relationships (incluing having and raising children) because we feel an obligation to fulfill an "evoluationary benefit." I believe most of us do so because of reasons that would be more in keeping with a desire to avoid loneliness, give and receive love, and leave a legacy of love, value, etc. with our children. At this point in earth's history, if human evolution is stiffled at any point in the future, it's likely to be due to humanity's resounding reproductive success (resulting in over-population and over-consumption and poor distribution of planetary resources), rather than because we'd run out of people.

Nearly 10,000 years of recorded human history is not something to lightly toss away. Even with all of its problems over those millenia, marriage between a man and a woman in a community of married parents has repeatedly shown to be the most successful strategy for the raising of children.

I agree with you that marriage in a community of married parents has repeatedly shown to be the most successful strategy of raising children.

I don't believe allowing same-sex couples the right to civilly marry negates 10,000 years of recorded human history. In fact, just the opposite: I firmly believe that granting same-sex couples raising children equal entrance into that "community of married parents" builds and expands on the resounding success of 10,000 years of history demonstrating the benefits of marriage, both for childless couples and those that raise children of their own.

To get into morality side for just a moment. I personally don't care if someone "does it" with a tree. Speaking as as a Social Worker(albeit a retired one) if they were come to me branch in hand seeking advice on getting married. We'd have a nice long talk about boundaries, informed consent, emotional transference to inanimate objects, and splinters in uncomfortable places.

I'd agree with your approach 100%.

Moreover the LDS, and most other religions and cultures do have have standing Scripture that would preclude such, and any such actions, with anything other than between a opposite sexed married couple.

Scripture is definitely meaningful for those that believe it, and I fully support the decision of anyone who believes that same-sex marriage is immoral to refrain from marrying someone of the same sex.

I further believe that Civil Unions as legalized by the State of California answers the desire of same sex partners, and meets all the legal definitions of marriage without the formal revocation of the meaning of the word. It could be called a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for all the legal difference it would make.

I recognize that this is at the heart of where we disagree. Ultimately, we'll both have to simply watch our opposing views of whether or not equality requires the shared application of the word "civil marriage" for both opposite-sex and same-sex couples make it's way through the court system, eventually being decided by the SCOTUS.

I think that because of the commitment required to raise children to be happy productive adults marriage is a necessary ingredient.

I firmly share your belief that a committed marriage (as opposed to other non-married parenting circumstances) is the most likely structure in which parents are most likely to raise children to become happy, productive adults.

nfertility, divorce, and death are merely exceptions that prove the rule.--especially I won't even get into the effects of divorce, and death of a parent has on children.

Believe me: as a now-single father struggling with my ex-wife to try minimize the negative effects of our divorce and to raise happy, emotionally-healthy children in the wake of a bitter, antagonistic, bitter, volatile, bitter, hostile (and did I mention bitter...?) divorce, and seeing the profoundly devastating results in my own children, I couldn't agree more that divorce should be avoided at ALL costs. I also believe that it's therefore equally vital to foster an environment which reinforces pre-marital expectations and pre-marital behaviors before (obviously) marriage that reduce the chances of divorce after (obviously) marriage.

In keeping with both of those perspectives, I believe that allowing both straight and gay couples equal civil marriage rights and responsabilities will create a world where there will be decreased numbers of children, such as my own, who have to try to cope with the break-up of their Mom and Dad because their gay parent married someone of the opposite sex that he/she otherwise wouldn't have, due to false expectations and promises of change that would ultimately prove to be impossible. Coupled with the ordinary challenges (ranging from things like personality clashes, at the most minimum end of the spectrum, to personality disorders, mental health imcompatabilities, and emotionally or physically abusive situations, at the other extreme of the spectrum) that exist even in the most ideal circumstances, many of such mixed-orientation marriages ultimately prove unsalvageable.

In fighting for equal civil marriage rights for same-sex couples, I firmly believe I am fighting on behalf of children like my own--to try to avoid the terrible circumstances for others in that I, my ex-wife, and my children (and so many like us) unwittingly found ourselves in.

In short, I support both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage because I believe doing so is in the best interests of couples, families, children, and society.

Darin

[Calm]

It also ignores the reality of the thousands of children who have been abandoned by their biological parents (whether due to abandonment, financial inability to raise the children, unhealthy parents who should not raise children, death, etc) but are in need of loving adoptive parents to take them into their homes and make them their own family--in other words, you also seem to be condemning willing adoptive parents for "preventing biological parents from forming marriages" who never are going to get married anyway or have been deemed by the state to be unfit parents, regardless of their marital status. Similarly, then, it is a condemnation of adoption (regardless of the gender of the infertile parents), rather than gay marriage.

Re the need for adoption and foster care (not a direct comment on the above comment, just a news item I found relevant to the overall topic): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8353180/Foster-parents-defeated-by-the-new-Inquisition.html

I had read in another article I am too lazy to find now that there is a shortage of 10,000 needed caregivers to provided for foster children in the UK. Now with the elimination of those who hold a less than acceptable to the government standard opinion of promoting homosexual behaviour in children, there will likely be a lot less providers unfortunately. It is interesting to me that just what seems a short time ago that adoption by gay couples was being promoted in various conversations I was aware of to allow for more children to be placed in families, yet the opposite result has occurred at this current time in the UK.

Probably a better balanced article out there on this, I would appreciate anyone posting it (perhaps starting a new thread?) because I am now off to bed for a late nap or something.

[Daniel2]

I just received the following via email, and found it to be quite appropriate to this discussion. Melson, the current President of Affirmation (an organization formed by Mormon gays and lesbians) brings up many encouraging points for those who support same-sex marriage:

From the desk of Dave Melson (MD):

Freedom for Some

by David Melson

The Affirmation Messenger

March 7, 2011

I have spent much of this last month, and particularly this past week, roaming the halls of the Maryland State Capital in Annapolis, meeting with elected officials, testifying before committees, and working for the passage of two important pieces of legislation: The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act (marriage equality) and The Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Act.

The marriage equality bill has made it most of the way through the legislative process and three critical votes; it faces one more vote for passage, and then goes to the Governor who is waiting to sign it into law. The anti-discrimination bill is just starting on its journey through the process. This has been a tough battle for many of the legislators.

More than one official described being subjected to an unprecedented level of intense pressure from a coalition consisting of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the Catholic Church, and the LDS Church (with almost all of the funding coming from the latter). Multiple sources have stated that the coalition plans to spend up to $50 million to block or defeat these two bills in Maryland.

A few things have changed however since Prop 8 in California. The most important is that we have reached a critical mass in the fight for equality in the United States, with a majority of adults in the U.S. now stating that they are in favor of marriage equality for LGBT citizens.

Second, the LGBT community is much more cohesive than it was in the California campaign; hundreds of organizations are now working together, talking the same themes, coordinating their actions.

Third, our message has changed; we are no longer preaching about legal rights, civil rights, or tax advantages. LGBT organizations are now talking about families and values; our families are every bit as worthy and important and as valuable to society as anyone else

[Mordecai]

[deleted]