SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage

[BVS]

The question was serious, does England not have Gay Civil Unions?

Could this have been a stressor-tipping this man over the edge?

Are Gays not allowed to be recognized as couples adding to the anger of this one man?

I'm completely serious.

<>

If you are then I apologise, and I agree with Irvine...

 

[yolland]

Imagine the scenario of a girl being raised by a gay male couple. Eventually that girl is going reach pre-adolescent/adolescent years. Her body is going to change. Is it then unreasonable to suggest that perhaps a mother or at least a mother-figure - a woman that the girl trusts implicitly to be able to talk about such things with - would be a more ideal parent for a girl of this age when the girl is getting her first period, or is exploring her private parts for the first time? I mean, let's face it, no guy has ever had a monthly visitor in his life. I think it is absolutely reasonable to suggest that in this scenario, a mother or mother-figure could show considerably more understanding(considering she has had experience and a guy hasn't) and offer advice concerning these issues that a man just couldn't.

After thinking on it for a while, I couldn't think of a situation for the opposite scenario(a boy being raised by a gay female couple) that was as involuntarily and permanently limiting to one gender parent as the situation above was(imo, anyway).

I think that's because you're a man, though, honestly. For example, when it comes to the, erm, parts of having a first menstrual period that are actually challenging--which would basically be figuring out how to insert a tampon--the reality is you figure out that stuff alone behind a firmly closed bathroom door, and the last thing you'd want is your mother hovering over you while you awkwardly attempt to figure out what sounds like it should be soooo easy, but in reality usually isn't the first few times. (Would a boy want his dad there while he figures out how to put on a condom? No.) Yeah you'll probably have some "oops" laundry items to attend to as well, but frankly that's embarrassing regardless of who else lives in the house, and anyhow figuring out what to do about it is hardly rocket science. And no-one of either sex wants either parent around while they "explore their private parts for the first time," unless you're talking about the forms of that that preschool-age kids who haven't yet learned 'Don't do that in public' will try. Maybe learning to select and put on a bra for the first time would be a better example; lots of girls find it reassuring and helpful to have an adult woman there assisting them with that--then again, lots don't, and again would prefer to be behind a closed door figuring it out on their own, or perhaps with a female friend who already wears one and can show the age-appropriate humor about the weirdness of it all that a mother can't. Same thing with learning how to shave.

But any of us have seen any number of people who grew up without a father being deeply affected by it, saying how much they missed having a father, how when they had children of their own, they wanted to be the father they never had. They might still love their mother completely, and that love may have been enough to raise a good person, but it doesn't change the fact that they missed having a father.

Abandonment issues aren't synonymous with gender issues, though. There's a difference between occasionally having questions you'd prefer to ask a same-sex adult about and having a load of anger, grief, self-blame and what-have-you left to work through in the wake of the neglectful alcoholic dad who finally moves out, or the mother who humiliated your father by leaving him for another man, or just the fallout from a terminally bad relationship between your parents even if both of them were always devoted and loving with you personally. (And of course these things can and do happen in households headed by gay or lesbian couples too, and those children are likewise left with "issues" to work through as a result.)

Ideally, it would make sense to me that, ok, as a gay couple be married, but - and this is especially if your child is the opposite gender you are - make sure there is someone - an aunt/uncle(depending on the gender of the child), a close friend of one or both parents that is the opposite gender of the child, someone like that - that the child knows and trusts from a young age so that if he/she ever needs advice/help/whatever from an adult of the opposite gender who cares for them, they have one(at least one). To me, that makes the most sense.

I do very much agree with this, in much the same way that I'd say, if you're a white couple adopting an African-American child, then you should do your best to ensure there are trusted black adults in your child's social network whom s/he could turn to for advice and support with certain things, like encountering racism whether overt or casual from peers or their parents, teachers etc. (which, depending on where you live, might well be much harder than ensuring the presence of potential same-sex mentors). Because the one thing a white parent will never be able to share with a black child is the direct, firsthand experience of what it's like to be discriminated against as a black person. (Or for that matter, the way straight parents can't relate firsthand to coming out.) But these aren't even close to being the kinds of things that make one an unworthy or inadequate parent. Responsibility, consistency, trustworthiness, ability to put others' needs first, the sensitivity to know when a child needs gentle encouragement and support versus when s/he needs boundaries and authority, and love (which, yes, is often lazily tossed out as the panacea for all potential parenting obstacles, which it certainly isn't)--those are the kinds of qualities that really matter. And a parent who has them will recognize when his or her child has issues that are best addressed with the help of other adults, because such issues always come up, no matter which gender or racial or religious or whatever composition your family has.

 

[Irvine511]

So I'm not presenting any of this as any reason not to allow gay marriage, just as an issue that I feel was dismissed too quickly and should be taken into consideration.

i can see how this is a consideration, but i think we all agree that gay adoption or IVF is totally separate from marriage rights.

however, gay adoption and IVF has been around a lot longer than gay marriage, and most of these issues have been addressed and studies conclusively show that kids with same-sexed parents do just as well as their friends with opposite-sexed parents. that there might be unique challenges that individual families might face, or differences that are unique to same-sex households, but none of these differences or challenges are of any greater importance in child development than the challenges or differences you faced growing up with your parents than the ones that i faced growing up with my parents.

it is all about content, and not form. and it is this assertion is what has lead to the expansion of human freedom and the expansion of human consciousness since ... the Renaissance? since ever?

it's the ability to recognize the individual within whatever form they come, that we do unto others as we'd have done unto ourselves, that the shepherd in the field is as worthy of his humanity and dignity as the king on the throne, has directly contributed to what might be called human progress.

same-sex marriage is yet another step along this centuries long road, and those who are opposed are in opposition to basic freedom.

why does this matter so much? why is marriage so important for gay people?

because marriage not only gives structure, meaning, and purpose to *all* romantic relationships -- should those involve decide that they want to eventually be in a marriage -- which only has positive effects for individuals (married people are happier) and for society as a whole (married people tend to be more moderate in their vices and be invested in stability), but it actually is good for gay people themselves.

why? it removes one of the last forms of discrimination used to tell gay people that they are somehow less-than. if your same sex relationship is viewed in the eyes of the law as equal to an equivalent heterosexual relationship, then there is no logical reason to discriminate and there is no reason for a gay person to lie awake at night and wonder if maybe there is something wrong with them, if maybe they are defective, if maybe they themselves have done something wrong.

whenever i'm asked about coming out, whenever i'm asked about dealing with parents of gay children, the one thing i think is important to stress to *everybody* is that there is no one who has done anything wrong. the parents haven't done anything wrong, and the gay child hasn't done anything wrong. there is no fault, there is no blame. and same sex marriage ads a legal dimension to what is plain and true and obvious. if people have a problem with gay people, that is *their* problem to get over. it is no one else's problem. it will go a long ways to address the disparity between the legal and social discrimination that has heretofore denied basic gay dignity and equality.

andrew sullivan, superblogger, often comes up in gay marriage discussions. and rightly so. he posited the idea in a 1989 essay in The New Republic. but it was his article for Time written a few years ago that gives a big beating heart to the issues and that renders these preposterous (who decides? will of the people? laws confirm ideals?) arguments that are put forth as little more than distractions from the central prejudice that's at the core of any anti-marriage equality "argument."

so i'll just repost it and leave it at that. it is a deeply conservative argument, one that i would think would resonate with any conservative who truly wants to defend marriage, *not* from homosexuals, but from it's degradation by society. it's an argument that should speak to conservatives who advocate marriage for the stability it brings, for the so-called "family values" it protects and nurtures, and for the respect for tradition it by definition reaffirms.

all you need to do is remove the prejudiced assumption that gay-is-wrong.

Why The M Word Matters To Me
By Andrew Sullivan

As a child, I had no idea what homosexuality was. I grew up in a traditional home — Catholic, conservative, middle class. Life was relatively simple: education, work, family. I was raised to aim high in life, even though my parents hadn't gone to college. But one thing was instilled in me. What mattered was not how far you went in life, how much money you earned, how big a name you made for yourself. What really mattered was family and the love you had for one another. The most important day of your life was not graduation from college or your first day at work or a raise or even your first house. The most important day of your life was when you got married. It was on that day that all your friends and all your family got together to celebrate the most important thing in life: your happiness — your ability to make a new home, to form a new but connected family, to find love that put everything else into perspective.

But as I grew older, I found that this was somehow not available to me. I didn't feel the things for girls that my peers did. All the emotions and social rituals and bonding of teenage heterosexual life eluded me. I didn't know why. No one explained it. My emotional bonds to other boys were one-sided; each time I felt myself falling in love, they sensed it, pushed it away. I didn't and couldn't blame them. I got along fine with my buds in a nonemotional context, but something was awry, something not right. I came to know almost instinctively that I would never be a part of my family the way my siblings might one day be. The love I had inside me was unmentionable, anathema. I remember writing in my teenage journal one day, "I'm a professional human being. But what do I do in my private life?"

I never discussed my real life. I couldn't date girls and so immersed myself in schoolwork, the debate team, school plays, anything to give me an excuse not to confront reality. [Irvine: good gosh, this is true] When I looked toward the years ahead, I couldn't see a future. There was just a void. Was I going to be alone my whole life? Would I ever have a most important day in my life? It seemed impossible, a negation, an undoing. To be a full part of my family, I had to somehow not be me. So, like many other gay teens, I withdrew, became neurotic, depressed, at times close to suicidal. I shut myself in my room with my books night after night while my peers developed the skills needed to form real relationships and loves. In wounded pride, I even voiced a rejection of family and marriage. It was the only way I could explain my isolation.

It took years for me to realize that I was gay, years more to tell others and more time yet to form any kind of stable emotional bond with another man. Because my sexuality had emerged in solitude — and without any link to the idea of an actual relationship — it was hard later to reconnect sex to love and self-esteem. It still is. But I persevered, each relationship slowly growing longer than the last, learning in my 20s and 30s what my straight friends had found out in their teens. But even then my parents and friends never asked the question they would have asked automatically if I were straight: So, when are you going to get married? When will we be able to celebrate it and affirm it and support it? In fact, no one — no one — has yet asked me that question.

When people talk about gay marriage, they miss the point. This isn't about gay marriage. It's about marriage. It's about family. It's about love. It isn't about religion. It's about civil marriage licenses. Churches can and should have the right to say no to marriage for gays in their congregations, just as Catholics say no to divorce, but divorce is still a civil option. These family values are not options for a happy and stable life. They are necessities. Putting gay relationships in some other category — civil unions, domestic partnerships, whatever — may alleviate real human needs, but by their very euphemism, by their very separateness, they actually build a wall between gay people and their families. They put back the barrier many of us have spent a lifetime trying to erase.

It's too late for me to undo my past. But I want above everything else to remember a young kid out there who may even be reading this now. I want to let him know that he doesn't have to choose between himself and his family anymore. I want him to know that his love has dignity, that he does indeed have a future as a full and equal part of the human race. Only marriage will do that. Only marriage can bring him home.

 

[martha]

What? Your own sig says 'vote no on prop 8'. Voting against the prop upholds gay marriage, right? So I don't support the prop because I support gay marriage.

My spaz. Sorry.

 

[martha]

So I'm not presenting any of this as any reason not to allow gay marriage, just as an issue that I feel was dismissed too quickly and should be taken into consideration.

I get it.

 

[INDY500]

saying that same-sex couples can never provide for their kids as well as heterosexuals, is not only blatantly false, it's pure, 100%, hateful bigotry.

It's also not what I said.

I never said same-sex couples couldn't provide for, raise or love their children just as well as a heterosexuals. Or for that matter that there aren't fabulous single parent families out there. Or couples that may never marry. Or grandparents raising children. Or that traditional families are always perfect.
No, what I said was -- only marriage between a man and a women naturally results in children and is ideal for their upbringing.
That's hateful? That's controversial?

Please don't put words into my mouth or juxtapose your misconstrued idea of what supporters of tradition marriage argue.

My hope is that posts like this, in the near future, would get one suspended on a forum like this.

Classic.

 

[anitram]

only marriage between a man and a women naturally results in children and is ideal for their upbringing.

I've known plenty of totally fucked up people who were raised in that "ideal" environment.

 

[INDY500]

When the discourse of the "debate" involves shrill stereotypes that are indefensible rationally and appeals to fabricated fantasies of tradition (i.e., 1950s TV shows), it's not hard to see why the discourse has devolved as it has.

I would remind those that would dismiss the traditional family as a fabricated fantasy or an outdated relic of the 50's, that's it not.

Not perfect and not the only model to raise children, but it's still the most consistently ideal one and remains the cornerstone of society.

 

[Irvine511]

I would remind those that would dismiss the traditional family as a fabricated fantasy and an outdated relic of the 50's, that's it not.

Not perfect and not the only model to raise children, but it's still the most consistently ideal one and remains the cornerstone of society.

this is actually fantastic. because what's amazing is that the elites, the blue staters, the liberals, the Obama folks ... these are the people in this country that are most likely to support marriage equality. and if you look at the numbers, it's the liberals, the elitists, the blue staters who are living the closes to the 1950s ideal of the perfect family. they get married later, they have fewer kids, but they stay together longer, the kids are raised with love and affection and attention (from dad, too!).

i think the Obama's are a perfect examples of the elitist blue state meritocracy. where people get ahead through hard work and love and even faith (!!! shocked to hear me say that? !!!) and community organizing. you never hear about tantrums or prescription addiction from Michelle, or philandering from Barry. why? probably because Barry knows that Michelle would kick his ass -- modern, educated women don't look the other way or expect to be treated like dirt by their husbands.

truly, it's the elitists who lead what must be considered conservative lives.

contrast this to the Palin family. large, young, pregnant teenagers. much more unorthodox on the face of it. and this is a very successful family, it seems. bound by love. but not as traditional as the Obamas. it's the red staters who are plagued by divorce, by infidelity, by substance abuse, by too many children and not enough resources.

what do the elitists want to do? expand marriage and offer assistance to those struggling.

what do the red staters want to do? blame the gays.

 

[Irvine511]

Not perfect and not the only model to raise children, but it's still the most consistently ideal one and remains the cornerstone of society.

so you'd exclude other forms of family through law?

isn't this just like saying, "missionary position is best and most pleasurable for the man and the woman; everything else is illegal."

 

[A_Wanderer]

It's also not what I said.

I never said same-sex couples couldn't provide for, raise or love their children just as well as a heterosexuals. Or for that matter that there aren't fabulous single parent families out there. Or couples that may never marry. Or grandparents raising children. Or that traditional families are always perfect.
No, what I said was -- only marriage between a man and a women naturally results in children and is ideal for their upbringing.
That's hateful? That's controversial?

Yes, the assertion that it is ideal (in general) demands that it produces better situations for children.

Take 100 straight couples and 100 gay couples, put kids into the households, your asserting that the children in the gay families will be worse off than those in straight households.

Only fucking between a man and a woman naturally results in children, and those children are no worse off if they are raised in gay households

 

[yolland]

I agree, at the point where you're talking about witholding from gay parents (current or future) the same legal tools available to heterosexual parents through civil marriage, then you're pretty clearly categorically dismissing their potential to be worthy parents.

And as A_W pointed out in characteristically blunt fashion, it's heterosexual sex that "naturally" results in children, whether the man and woman in question are married or not. In fact that's presumably a, if not the, major reason why the institution of heterosexual marriage evolved in the first place--to secure and enhance paternal responsibility.

 

[melon]

I would remind those that would dismiss the traditional family as a fabricated fantasy or an outdated relic of the 50's, that's it not.

Not perfect and not the only model to raise children, but it's still the most consistently ideal one and remains the cornerstone of society.

You know, we've gone through this dance enough. Frankly, this entire debate about children is a non sequitor in the debate over same-sex marriage. Gays already have biological children, whether from a previous heterosexual relationship, through IVF, or through adoption. Whether the state sanctions it or not, homosexuals have children and will continue to have them, marriage or not.

What's really quite interesting, particularly amongst those few states that ban gay adoption--you know, because "the gays" are bad for the children (if the Christian Right is to be believed) much like "the Jews" drink the blood of Arab children (if Hamas is to be believed)--these states still say that they, very desperately, need gays to be foster parents. You know, because "June and Ward Cleaver" breed like rabbits and can't take care of all their biological children.

Really, you and I both know quite well that this isn't about children. It really isn't about marriage. Nathan actually quite said it himself, frankly. It's all about homosexuality, and how it makes you sick, right? You know, let's not dare let the goverment make this "behavior" normative, and all? Frankly, I've said it repeatedly, but I know it all comes down to textbook bigotry, whether it is you two or it is anyone on the Right objecting to the idea of "the gays" being equal to you. You've been taught your entire life that it's revolting and disgusting, and you're not about to let those perverts think that they're like you. So who needs facts, truth, and logic--all of which is on our side--when you can just assert arbitary dominant hegemonic power and put those pesky minorities in their place?

 

[INDY500]

Really, you and I both know quite well that this isn't about children. It really isn't about marriage. Nathan actually quite said it himself, frankly. It's all about homosexuality, and how it makes you sick, right?

No, no it really isn't. It's nothing but a defense of traditional marriage, fidelity and the nuclear family as the single most enduring institution for stabilizing society, raising children, providing continuity between the generations and for passing on social and moral virtues. Not the only type or model, but again, just the most reliable.

And it's the same strong argument and the exact same postulation that has been made against free-love or commune living, radical feminism and their hostility to patriarchy, open marriages, no-fault divorce, Murphy Brown and single-parent families or just plain apathy. As in Europe, where marriage is increasingly seen as irrelevant.

Now the truth is, sometimes divorce is best. And many children raised by a single parent do just fine (Barack Obama for one). And who wouldn't rather see a child loved in any type of family - same-sex included - rather than being bounced around through foster homes or the orphanages of 100 years ago?

But this diversity of families and your "credible studies" don't exist in a vacuum. They exist surrounded and supported by the traditional family. When it becomes not the ideal, but just one option, well, we'll see. But my "credible studies" show children raised in traditional families to be much less prone to substance abuse, have a lower incidence of out-of-wedlock births, less behavioral problems, have higher grades, be less likely to drop out of school and be less likely to divorce after they marry.

So chalk up opposition to same-sex marriage solely to bigotry or homophobia if you need to. But my argument is a consistent one and one that will be made again when the next challenge to the traditional family comes along. Be it polygamy, Brave New World utopianism or whatever.

And that is about all I have to say until we know the results of the vote next month.

 

[BVS]

Murphy Brown and single-parent families

Talk about living in the past...

 

[INDY500]

Talk about living in the past...

It's more recent than anti-miscegenation laws.

 

[Irvine511]

No, no it really isn't. It's nothing but a defense of traditional marriage, fidelity and the nuclear family as the single most enduring institution for stabilizing society, raising children, providing continuity between the generations and for passing on social and moral virtues. Not the only type or model, but again, just the most reliable.

how are two women who live in massachusetts who are married and raising 2 kids anything but what you've described above. they are stable, they love and know how to raise their children, they can provide all that you've stated above. how are they any different than a man and a woman in massachusetts doing the same thing?

And it's the same strong argument and the exact same postulation that has been made against free-love or commune living, radical feminism and their hostility to patriarchy, open marriages, no-fault divorce, Murphy Brown and single-parent families or just plain apathy. As in Europe, where marriage is increasingly seen as irrelevant.

how does gay people wanting to commit their lives to one another do anything other than affirm many traditional values.

and, erm, did you really mean to say that about patriarchy?

But this diversity of families and your "credible studies" don't exist in a vacuum. They exist surrounded and supported by the traditional family. When it becomes not the ideal, but just one option, well, we'll see. But my "credible studies" show children raised in traditional families to be much less prone to substance abuse, have a lower incidence of out-of-wedlock births, less behavioral problems, have higher grades, be less likely to drop out of school and be less likely to divorce after they marry.

you realize, INDY, that those studies compare two parent households to one parent households. they do NOT compare same sex to opposite sex households. studies that DO compare same to opposite sexed households show that kids do just as fine by the standards you've set out. in fact, kids with lesbian parents tend to be more empathetic and more likely to be kind to their peers.

So chalk up opposition to same-sex marriage solely to bigotry or homophobia if you need to. But my argument is a consistent one and one that will be made again when the next challenge to the traditional family comes along. Be it polygamy, Brave New World utopianism or whatever.

you haven't show at all, and neither has nathan, how opposition to same sex marriage is anything other than homophobia.

we've all made the point that marriage isn't necessarily about children. martha is very happily married. and very happily without children. what on earth makes it so that she can get married, but melon and i can't marry our respective partners?

and gay families exist -- why shouldn't they get the same conservative, traditional tools of familial stabilization that straight people get?

 

[Irvine511]

lest we get complacent ...

A TV ad showing San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom saying California is going to have same-sex marriage "whether you like it or not" is being credited with flipping poll numbers to favor the Nov. 4 ballot proposition to amend the state constitution to undo the state Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage.

"This door's wide open now. It's gonna happen. Whether you like it or not!" Newsom says in a clip included in the ad paid for by forces supporting passage of Proposition 8.

The ad continues: "Four judges ignored 4 million voters and imposed same-sex marriage on California. It's no longer about tolerance. Acceptance of gay marriage is now mandatory.

"That changes a lot of things: People sued over personal beliefs. Churches could lose their tax exemption. Gay marriage taught in public schools.

"We don't have to accept this. ('Whether you like it or not!') Yes on 8."

Gay activists admit the ad is good, even though it contains "lies." But equally important, they say, the pro-8 side has raised nearly $10 million more than the anti-8 side, allowing the forces that want to re-ban same-sex marriage greater access to the television airwaves.

The gay side's current ad shows the parents of a lesbian pleading with voters not to "eliminate" marriage for anyone.

"Our worst nightmares are coming true," Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors said in an urgent fundraising appeal Oct. 7. "Today we learned of the massive $25.4 million our opponents have raised so far. They are using this war chest to broadcast lies: 24/7 and up and down the state of California. And the polls show the lies are working. We need your donation now."

Although other recent polls have shown opposition to Prop 8 (which means one supports same-sex marriage) running as high as 55 percent, and support for Prop 8 (which means one opposes same-sex marriage) running as low as 38 percent, two polls released Oct. 6 and 7 show voters now have flipped.

Equality California said its internal polling shows 47 percent of likely California voters want to re-ban same-sex marriage and 43 percent want to keep it legal. Likewise, a CBS 5/SurveyUSA poll found 47 percent support for a ban and 42 percent opposition to it.

"People change their minds about Proposition 8 when they hear the lie that churches will lose their tax-free status if they won't marry same-sex couples," said Kors. "Even though this is not true.

"So this is crunch time. With less than a month before the election, we must get on the air now to answer these lies and swing votes back to our side. And the only way to do that is to raise more money. The generous $15.8 million that our supporters have given isn't enough."

The new EQCA polling, a compilation of the group's daily tracking polls, was conducted by Lake Research Partners. It questioned 1,051 randomly dialed likely voters between Sept. 29 and Oct. 2 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percent.

and, yes, it's a very effective ad. very effective ad

and nearly the entire anti-marriage movement is being funded by the very deep pockets of the Mormon church.

 

[Dalton]

You know what's nice about deep pockets? They allow you to play with your balls. I'm not sure how that special underwear feels against the skin though.

 

[Irvine511]

You know what's nice about deep pockets? They allow you to play with your balls.

Smart, smart, smart, smart, smart.

I'm not sure how that special underwear feels against the skin though.

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb

 

[maycocksean]

Who exactly on this board has appealed to Ozzie and Harriet except for maycocksean? I think we've enjoyed a remarkably civilized discussion on these matters, citing legal precedent etc.

I was just referencing the photo that Irvine, I think it was, posted. . .Was that uncivilized?

 

[INDY500]

how are two women who live in massachusetts who are married and raising 2 kids anything but what you've described above. they are stable, they love and know how to raise their children, they can provide all that you've stated above. how are they any different than a man and a woman in massachusetts doing the same thing?

Again, I'm sure you can find examples of any family arrangement that works for somebody. And there's no guarantee that a child raised in a traditional nuclear family in a quiet suburb won't grow up to become a serial killer, terrorist or wife-beater. But if you need an analogy try this. Lots of temperaments or breeds of dogs can be used to pull a sled but a lead dog is required to keep them all on the same trail and at the same task.

how does gay people wanting to commit their lives to one another do anything other than affirm many traditional values.

No one is stopping you from living in a committed, long-term relationship and enjoying the benefits of doing so.

and, erm, did you really mean to say that about patriarchy?

Absolutely, radical feminists would abolish marriage... men... and razors.

in fact, kids with lesbian parents tend to be more empathetic and more likely to be kind to their peers.

Thank you Irvine for proving my earlier point. That men and women are different.

Yolland wanted examples of what men and women bring to a marriage. Well, among other things, women bring a nurturing instinct, empathy and a deeper desire for stability. Which is why we would expect lesbian couples to be more desiring of children than gay men and for their relationships to be as lasting as opposite-sex relationships. But they're still a fatherless household. And what do fathers bring? One need only look to communities where fathers are all but nonexistent to see what's missing. An authority figure, an example for boys, some chivalry towards women and a family protector.

Everyone here knows women are better equipped than men to do some jobs in society and men others. So why the uproar that fathers and mothers are different and not interchangeable? Women are better listeners and better able to read emotions than men. Which is why they are slowly taking over my field, medicine. And I say great. Not that we men aren't good, but women are just plain better caregivers.

That's what "conservative" feminism is all about by the way. Women embracing their nature, characteristics and innate gifts and taking them out of the home and into the workforce for the betterment of society. Radical feminism, on the other hand, is about denying the feminine nature and the inherent differences between the sexes.

you haven't show at all, and neither has nathan, how opposition to same sex marriage is anything other than homophobia.

I think your mind is already made up at this point. But I do appreciate your reading my posts, taking the time respond with valid questions and counterpoints and for remaining civil.

we've all made the point that marriage isn't necessarily about children. martha is very happily married. and very happily without children. what on earth makes it so that she can get married, but melon and i can't marry our respective partners?

Not germane. Should a married couple divorce should their children be tragically killed or after they leave the house to pursue their own lives?

and gay families exist -- why shouldn't they get the same conservative, traditional tools of familial stabilization that straight people get?

I'd allow you everyone of them except a marriage certificate. Why not that? Ask Joe Biden or Barack Obama.

 

[phillyfan26]

It's also not what I said.

I never said same-sex couples couldn't provide for, raise or love their children just as well as a heterosexuals. Or for that matter that there aren't fabulous single parent families out there. Or couples that may never marry. Or grandparents raising children. Or that traditional families are always perfect.
No, what I said was -- only marriage between a man and a women naturally results in children and is ideal for their upbringing.
That's hateful? That's controversial?

Please don't put words into my mouth or juxtapose your misconstrued idea of what supporters of tradition marriage argue.

By that logic, irresponsible heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to be married because they aren't ideal for children. If marriage should only be allowed for the ideal, then they're all out. Only responsible heterosexuals.

I honestly didn't think you would make it simply about being limited to the ideals, hence my response to your post.

Either way, I still don't say an ounce of logic involved.

 

[BVS]

No one is stopping you from living in a committed, long-term relationship and enjoying the benefits of doing so.

Sure about that?

 

[martha]

I'd allow you everyone of them except a marriage certificate.

How generous of you. Would you have "allowed" them to even have a legal relationship 50 years ago, when it was still illegal to be gay, or would you have come up with some antiquated ideals about the strong man and the soft woman?

Why not that?

We keep asking you, but all you've got is some idea about protecting me from the big nasty gay men trying to usurp whatever role you think I should have in my marriage. When that doesn't work, you think of the children, and when that doesn't work, you dodge the question.

None of it addresses the issue of codifying discrimination, of applying separate but equal to Irvine.

 

[INDY500]

How generous of you. Would you have "allowed" them to even have a legal relationship 50 years ago, when it was still illegal to be gay, or would you have come up with some antiquated ideals about the strong man and the soft woman?

Don't know, wasn't around 50 years ago

We keep asking you, but all you've got is some idea about protecting me from the big nasty gay men trying to usurp whatever role you think I should have in my marriage. When that doesn't work, you think of the children, and when that doesn't work, you dodge the question.

Or maybe you just don't like my answers.

None of it addresses the issue of codifying discrimination, of applying separate but equal to Irvine.

Then you come up with a definition of marriage that doesn't include some while excluding others.

 

[INDY500]

Sure about that?

Fair point. Make that I wouldn't.

 

[martha]

Don't know, wasn't around 50 years ago

You're always unwilling to face up to the fact that people used your same arguments in the past to pass laws that you claim you wouldn't have agreed with, but you never seem to want to understand that those people used the same arguments you're using and that's why you really don't have a leg to stand on.

Or maybe you just don't like my answers.

You keep repeating them, hoping they'll be true.

Then you come up with a definition of marriage that doesn't include some while excluding others.

We have, numerous times. And why all of a sudden do you give a shit about excluding people? It's all you've been advocating here. You're more than willing to exclude.


Oh wait! You're going to pull the children and dogs argument, next, aren't you?

 

[martha]

Fair point. Make that I wouldn't.

I doubt it. I'm sure if you'd been around when others were attempting to have these rights, you would have wanted to maintain the status quo. Every time I ask you about it you dodge that question.

 

[BVS]

Fair point. Make that I wouldn't.

Well then if you wouldn't. What's the point?

If you wouldn't stop two men or two women from having all the same benefits and raise children then why all the back and forth? What has this been about? Is it just over the word?