the conservative case for same sex marriage

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Considering the topic was DOMA, it would not have been pertinent for him to address the single mother issue.

He was grandstanding is the point. For one thing "nuclear family" has always, and is still, defined in Merriam-Webster thusly:
nuclear family
noun

: a family group that consists only of father, mother, and children
First Known Use of NUCLEAR FAMILY
1947

But, just as marriage has recently had to be redefined so will nuclear family one supposes.

For the other thing, as I mentioned, gay adoption and gay marriage simply have not been around long enough to make any statistical judgement whatsoever as to their impact on society.
 
So which are in favor of:

a. abortions to prevent single mothers

b. more (free) contraception to prevent single mothers

c. stoning of immoral women to prevent single mothers

d. women staying in abusive relationships to prevent single mothers

e. locked chastity belts to prevent single mothers

f. plural marraige to prevent single mothers

Let's see... the current rate of children born to unwed mothers is, depending on the year, 38-40 percent. The year I was born, to my married mother, the rate was 5.3.

When I was born in 1960:

A) abortion was illegal
B) oral contraception was 1 year from market and condoms were condoned by some churches and usually only available in pharmacies
C) stoning of women was illegal
D) abusive relationships exist in shack-up single mother homes too and at a higher rate I'd be willing to wager
E) I couldn't find chastity belts in an old Sears catalog I have
F) polygamy was illegal as well

So, there must be something else, a wee bit less dramatic perhaps, that could be done.

Yes, no?
 
He was grandstanding is the point. For one thing "nuclear family" has always, and is still, defined in Merriam-Webster thusly:


But, just as marriage has recently had to be redefined so will nuclear family one supposes.

For the other thing, as I mentioned, gay adoption and gay marriage simply have not been around long enough to make any statistical judgement whatsoever as to their impact on society.
I feel so bad for Merriam and Webster, whatever are they going to do now?

And your last point there is sort of the whole point. The guy was trying to cite a study about nuclear families vs. single parent families and make it about same sex marriage, which is wrong. That was Franken's contention.
 
It is indeed troubling.

But you were cool with the other person lying?

Your 'Leave it to Beaver' painting of your childhood is a lie as well.

Do you have any clue as to how many children were born out of wedlock and how many abusive relationships were not reported back then due to stigma? A stigma brought on by your line of thinking?
 
The Senator might also look into that statistics concerning children raised by single mothers. It is indeed troubling.

What is the point of bringing this up? Franken's argument was NOT that any old family configuration is as good as another--his point was that the study did not indicate that gender of the two parents was the defining issue in the healthy upbringing of the child, but rather the presence of two parents. The study didn't mention gender. Even if the researchers only studied heterosexual couples the sexual orientation of the couples was not the focus of the study, and therefore it's not appropriate to make that the point of the study for whatever reasons.

As you yourself pointed out there hasn't been a lot of research on the impact of same-sex married couples on chidlren, and as such this study cannot be used to make any statements about the effectiviness of such households.

But then you're smart enough that you already know this. I can only conclude that you're purposefully trying to obfuscate the issue.
 
the evidence shows that the best environment for a child is for it to have two committed lesbian mothers.

Kids with Lesbian Parents May Do Better Than Their Peers - TIME

:shrug:

but even still, i think that children need two good parents, so i am willing to give heterosexual men the benefit of the doubt, despite the fact that far and away the biggest threat to children -- sexually or physically -- are straight men.
 
but even still, i think that children need two good parents, so i am willing to give heterosexual men the benefit of the doubt, despite the fact that far and away the biggest threat to children -- sexually or physically -- are straight men.

I can't wait until the older generation that thinks that male on male pedophiles equal gay dies off. I can't believe I still hear that occasionally.
 
I can't wait until the older generation that thinks that male on male pedophiles equal gay dies off. I can't believe I still hear that occasionally.

When you say older, do you mean the 65+ crowd? Because I have heard neo-cons in their 30s and 40s say this. Sad but true.

When I hear people compare homosexuals to pedophiles, that to me shows nothing but pure hatred and fear of homosexuality, more so than citing the Bible that its wrong.
 
still, defined in Merriam-Webster thusly:


you'll note that definition came about only in 1947 (post bomb, too, interesting ...)

before that, families were much different and more inter-generational than the past 60 years.

really, no 5,000 years of tradition.
 
you'll note that definition came about only in 1947 (post bomb, too, interesting ...)

Though the term was coined in 1947, the concept had apparently been recognized by sociologists since the 17th century. And some historians have pinpointed the nuclear family as a concept (father, mother, children) being solidified by the end of the medieval period. Apparently as early as the 8th century, the term "family" was recognized in Germanic tribes as meaning one's immediate family.

before that, families were much different and more inter-generational than the past 60 years.

really, no 5,000 years of tradition.

Agree with inter-generational. The role that both a father and mother plays -- regardless of the cultural interpretation -- is up for much debate.
 
if they were gay, would men stop raping women and molesting little girls or beating their wives?

nobody has ever accused a gay man of doing any of those things

lets stay on topic, we are concerned about little boys being molested by men because they are gay men.

we don't have any bias' or prejudices, our only concern is little defenseless boys.

who can argue with that?
 
When you say older, do you mean the 65+ crowd? Because I have heard neo-cons in their 30s and 40s say this. Sad but true.

When I hear people compare homosexuals to pedophiles, that to me shows nothing but pure hatred and fear of homosexuality, more so than citing the Bible that its wrong.

Mainly 55+ crowd.
I am fortunate to not hang around people closer to my age who are so wrong and confused.
 
From my Senator:

Al Franken - U.S. Senator, Minnesota

Dear Mark,

There’s no good argument against marriage equality. There’s no good argument for the Defense of Marriage Act, one of the most unfair laws passed in my lifetime. And there’s no good argument for leaving it on the books.

What are we waiting for? The country has evolved -- Americans support the repeal of DOMA. So does President Obama. So does President Clinton, who signed it into law in 1996. So does Bob Barr, the Republican who wrote the darn thing.

I say it’s time. It’s time for gay and lesbian Americans to enjoy the same rights as the rest of us. It’s time to toss the bigotry and the fear into the dumpster of embarrassing history where they belong. And you know what? It’s time for progressives like you and me to stop waiting around for someone else to make this country what it ought to be.

It’s time to repeal DOMA. Let’s start right now, you and me. I’ve written a petition to get the ball rolling -- click here to add your name now!

Marrying Franni was the best thing that ever happened to me. And it’s always pained me to know that our country denies that right to millions of gays and lesbians.

Over the years, those of us who support marriage equality have had to put up with a series of nonsensical arguments from those who support marriage discrimination. And, one by one, their ridiculous objections have been proven wrong.

Same-sex marriage doesn’t hurt straight couples. It doesn’t hurt kids who grow up in loving same-sex families. It doesn’t hurt anyone. DOMA, on the other hand, is an ugly stain on our country. And every day we don’t repeal it is another day we’re making millions of Americans second-class citizens.

Let’s make today the day -- sign my petition to repeal DOMA and let’s get this done already.

I think we can do this, and I think we can do it now. But we can only do it if we convince decision-makers in the Obama administration and Congress that we won’t shut up until this gets done.

So let’s show them how many of us are prepared to fight for this -- right now. Sign my petition and tell Washington it’s time to repeal DOMA.

This is going to be a tough fight. But it’s a matter of simple fairness. We’re right. And we can win. Are you ready to fight alongside me?

Thanks,

Al Franken

P.S.: The first step is signing our petition. But if you’re ready to do more right now, how about forwarding this email to ten people or sharing it with your friends on Facebook? Or Tweet about it -- and make sure to use the hashtag #itstime.
 
What is the point of bringing this up? Franken's argument was NOT that any old family configuration is as good as another--his point was that the study did not indicate that gender of the two parents was the defining issue in the healthy upbringing of the child, but rather the presence of two parents. The study didn't mention gender. Even if the researchers only studied heterosexual couples the sexual orientation of the couples was not the focus of the study, and therefore it's not appropriate to make that the point of the study for whatever reasons.

As you yourself pointed out there hasn't been a lot of research on the impact of same-sex married couples on chidlren, and as such this study cannot be used to make any statements about the effectiviness of such households.

But then you're smart enough that you already know this. I can only conclude that you're purposefully trying to obfuscate the issue.

I didn't really bring it up as I didn't literally mean for the senator to address it during a committee meeting on DOMA. Or even to hijack this thread.
Only that I consider the rising rate of unwed, young mothers a much more serious issue with a staggering human toll and cost to society.
And now that I think about it--I don't want a political buffoon like Al Franken remotely involved with addressing the issue.
 
So, you're saying you fell into the same trap as the guy Franken was talking to, talking about what are basically non sequiturs.
 
So, you're saying you fell into the same trap as the guy Franken was talking to, talking about what are basically non sequiturs.


I have no idea the context from that short clip, only that Sen Franken is hostile to the gentlemen's testimony and feels the need to get a cheap laugh at the witness's expense.

For the record, early in this debate I cited such studies to support my beliefs and thanks to Irvine saw that that was not entirely fair. While I still think the ideal for child rearing is a loving biological mother and father (and that only a zealot would think otherwise) I no longer would cite statistics comparing same-sex parents with single parents in my opposition to gay marriage.
 
I have no idea the context from that short clip, only that Sen Franken is hostile to the gentlemen's testimony and feels the need to get a cheap laugh at the witness's expense.

For the record, early in this debate I cited such studies to support my beliefs and thanks to Irvine saw that that was not entirely fair. While I still think the ideal for child rearing is a loving biological mother and father (and that only a zealot would think otherwise) I no longer would cite statistics comparing same-sex parents with single parents in my opposition to gay marriage.
Why would only a zealot think otherwise?
 
The Atlantic, July 23
According to a study conducted by the Children's Hospital Boston, approximately 25% of gay teens in Massachusetts have no place to call home. They're not necessarily living on the street. In this case, "homeless" means the students have no permanent address--they could be staying with friends or extended family. But the lack of a stable home can negatively affect a student's performance in school, and makes dropping out more likely. The study is summarized in this release from the hospital:

"Roughly 1 in 4 lesbian or gay teens and 15% of bisexual teens are homeless, versus 3% of exclusively heterosexual teens, finds a Children's Hospital Boston study of more than 6,300 Massachusetts public high school students. Moreover, among teens who were homeless, those who were gay, lesbian or bisexual (GLB) were consistently more likely than heterosexuals to be on their own, unaccompanied by a parent or guardian.

The study, published online July 21 by the American Journal of Public Health, is the first to quantify the risk of homelessness among teens of different sexual orientations with population-based data. "Prior studies in homeless street youth have found that sexual minorities occur in much higher numbers than we'd expect based on their numbers in the community in general," says Heather Corliss, PhD, MPH, of the Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine at Children's, the study's first author. "This study looked at the magnitude of the difference for the first time."

...Less than 5% of [6,317] students overall identified themselves as GLB, yet they accounted for 19% of those who identified themselves as homeless...Among the youth who were homeless, those who were not exclusively heterosexual were more likely to be living away from their families. Among boys identifying as gay, 15% were homeless but unaccompanied by parents/guardians, and 8% were homeless but living with parents. Among lesbian girls, 22.5% were homeless and unaccompanied, while just 3.8% were homeless but with their parents.​
 
Is Perry for repealing DOMA?

Gov. Perry Takes States Rights Position on Gay Marriage

Sat, Jul. 23, 2011 Posted: 03:07 PM EDT


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Texas Governor Rick Perry said that he favors letting states decide whether or not to allow gay marriage, a remark that could have repercussions for a possible presidential bid.

“Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That's New York, and that's their business, and that's fine with me. That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business,” Perry said at an event held by the Aspen Institute in Aspen, Colo., on Friday.

Those who favor giving states authority over the federal government often cite the 10th Amendment to the Constitution in defense of their position. It says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Perry was also referencing New York state's recently passed law allowing gay marriage. The law goes into effect on Sunday.

Perry is widely expected to announce sometime mid-August that he will seek to become the next Republican nominee for President of the United States. Social conservatives were expected to be an important bloc of support for Perry. This announcement, however, throws that common wisdom into question.

There were some media reports that Christian Right leaders have been encouraging Perry to run and offered their support if he did. Some of those reports were false, however. Perry's support among Christian Right leaders may not be as broad as these media reports claimed.
 
I doubt it or Texas loses the right to determine its own marriage laws.
Defense of Marriage Act

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
 
if he 'slips'
than technically it not his fault

keep in mind he was a once a Democrat and Chair of the Al Gore for President Committee.
 
Fascinating and thought-provoking.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/n...union-by-a-state-that-didnt-recognize-it.html

Bound in a Gay Union by a State Denying It
By KAREN HARTMAN
Published: July 15, 2011

I’ve never had perfect timing. When New York finally legalized same-sex marriage last month, I had just gotten out of my lesbian union and married a guy.

If New York had allowed gay marriage in 2000, my girlfriend and I would never have driven to Vermont from Brooklyn to seize its groundbreaking offer of a same-sex civil union. We would never have held our double-white-gown ceremony in a field at sunset. We would never have gathered friends and family to rejoice in a verdant state where we did not live. And when we split in 2004, we would have gotten a divorce.

Instead, we spent almost seven years in a legal limbo that held us in our union by not recognizing it. I fell in love with a man. He and I had a child....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom