Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by "Irvine511

the quality if the parenting has to do with the individuals involved rather than their sexual orientation.

This statement is a little questionable -- we've discussed in other threads the varying benefits of gender essentialism, and I do believe that gender is important -- but I can also see your point that two loving parents are better than one, regardless of gender. I was visiting a clinic in Africa with some friends a few years ago where babies were crying -- parents had died of AIDS. The nurse said that developmentally, what those babies needed was someone to hold them. The light went on for me in terms of the fact that a baby's desperate need to be held and cared for has no gender-or-orientation-specific need. The need for loving, positive gender models will come later; those babies needed to be held and loved now. And there weren't enough arms. So for me, the more arms the better -- gay or straight.

What I do know is that all my LG friends who have children are doing the best they can

My wife and I are friends with a lesbian couple who conceived via IVF and have twins. The couple has their challenges (who doesn't?), but I can attest to the fact that they're doing the best they can to raise their kids and love them the best way they know how.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

I have two very close couple friends who have children. One is a lesbian couple who used a sperm donor, the other is a gay male couple who adopted a child from an unmarried teenager.

Both couples spent at least 3 years trying to get a child. If it was all about the couple, or if it were an exercise in self esteem, I think they'd have given up long before 3 years. Further, life as a childless adult has enormous advantages -- would someone really give up a reasonably comfortable life of adult freedoms in order to prove some kind of point?

I think as a rule, as Dieman has said, because it is so challenging to create a gay family, those that do are already highly self-selecting and highly motivated and have really thought this through. Gay couples don't get pregnant by accident, or because someone's biological clock is ticking.

All that said, I'm sure some gay parents aren't good parents. We also know a lot of crappy straight parents. My guess that, like the quality of a relationship, the quality if the parenting has to do with the individuals involved rather than their sexual orientation.

However, there are likely unique challenges to children of G/L couples, especially if they live in areas where there aren't many other children like them. While that's society's fault for fostering and encouraging a hostile environment hostile to LGBT people and their families, that's also something such parents know they have to deal with. What I do know is that all my LG friends who have children are doing the best they absolutely can, and probably 75% of those children were adopted. I can't imagine we'd rather have had those kids in foster care, or for those children conceived through donation or IVF to never have existed at all.

Many mothers looking to put a child up for adoption will actively seek out gay couples precisely because they are so motivated.
And lastly, even if it hasn't worked out well for your aunt, don't those children deserve to have the added security of married parents? with.

All of this makes quite a bit of sense on one hand. It's tough to argue against the success you described. But I would be more curious what this generation of children (the ones being currently raised by gay/lesbian parents) will say after they've grown up - since they are, and should be, the focus of this discussion. This issue is not about what is best for homosexuals, it is about what is best for children.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

All of this makes quite a bit of sense on one hand. It's tough to argue against the success you described. But I would be more curious what this generation of children (the ones being currently raised by gay/lesbian parents) will say after they've grown up - since they are, and should be, the focus of this discussion. This issue is not about what is best for homosexuals, it is about what is best for children.

If I had time is respond to your other post, but I don't at the moment.

As for this, it's safe to say that lesbians in particular have been raising children in significant number since the 1980s. Many of these children are grown up and from what studies we have, they are doing just fine.

I can understand that you may have this notion of an ideal in your mind, and maybe we can unpack that later, but would you argue that becomes a strong enough basis upon which to create laws to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying and having children? That you know what's better for them than they do?

Finally, the "best for the children" argument was one that was used against interracial children. The thinking even into the 1980s was that it was unfair to create a half black, half white child, caught between two cultures. How selfish of the parents to foist that on a child!

Seems different today, no?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

If I had time is respond to your other post, but I don't at the moment.

As for this, it's safe to say that lesbians in particular have been raising children in significant number since the 1980s. Many of these children are grown up and from what studies we have, they are doing just fine.

I won't ask for sources, I'll trust you're accurate here. If this is true - I would find it a bit surprising.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

I can understand that you may have this notion of an ideal in your mind, and maybe we can unpack that later, but would you argue that becomes a strong enough basis upon which to create laws to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying and having children? That you know what's better for them than they do?

Well - I treat this issue as I do all issues. I do my best to align my conscience and my democratic vote with that of the Kingdom of Heaven, as described throughout the New Testament - it sounds hokey I know, but that's where I'm at. The closer something is to that - the better.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Finally, the "best for the children" argument was one that was used against interracial children. The thinking even into the 1980s was that it was unfair to create a half black, half white child, caught between two cultures. How selfish of the parents to foist that on a child!

Seems different today, no?

As you do not see how gay/lesbian marriages compares to group marriages - I do not see gay/lesbian adoptions compare to interracial adoptions. I'm sharing my support for a model (male father and female mother) - either role can be filled by a person of any race.

[Irvine511]

i started a separate thread on same-sex adoption.

i also need to go.

[BoMac]

This young man, raised by two moms, had such a horrible childhood, and that has translated into an unproductive, crime-ridden adult life.

Zach Wahls Speaks About Family - YouTube

[Galeongirl]

Sorry guys, moving to the other thread....

[Dfit00]

I just noticed that same sex couples can now legally process immigration documents in the US when they marry a foreigner.

Very good advancement in my opinion.

[PennyLanePHINS]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3542904.html

Costa Rica may have unexpectedly legalized it. Apparently it was written into a bill by a liberal lawmaker, and conservatives signed without paying attention, which is incredibly funny. The president signed the bill, and even though she is more conservative said she wouldn't oppose same-sex unions, so I wonder what will happen now.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by PennyLanePHINS

Costa Rica Accidentally Approves Same-Sex Unions

Costa Rica may have unexpectedly legalized it. Apparently it was written into a bill by a liberal lawmaker, and conservatives signed without paying attention, which is incredibly funny. The president signed the bill, and even though she is more conservative said she wouldn't oppose same-sex unions, so I wonder what will happen now.

That is funny! Goes to show that politicians do not always know what they are doing.

I could see this being challenged and thrown out if there's enough plausible evidence that the lawmakers were deceived. Now if they just weren't reading the law, that's their problem and they should start looking for new jobs.

[Galeongirl]

They signed something without reading it properly?

If that's truly the case, they can't really bitch about it, right? Since they accepted it themselves..

[Popmartijn]

Originally Posted by Pearl

That is funny! Goes to show that politicians do not always know what they are doing.

I could see this being challenged and thrown out if there's enough plausible evidence that the lawmakers were deceived. Now if they just weren't reading the law, that's their problem and they should start looking for new jobs.

I don't think they were deceived. They were probably so set in their traditional mindset that they didn't take into account that 'no discrimination' also means no discrimination on sex and sexual orientation. The new law apparently contains the following phrase:

“The right to recognition without discrimination contrary to human dignity, social and economic effects of domestic partnerships that constitute publicly, notoriously unique and stable, with legal capacity for marriage for more than three years”

So yes, that can be interpreted as allowing same-sex unions.
Yay for Costa Rica!

[Galeongirl]

This is my fave radio station's hit of the week. First time I heard it. Pretty impressive that he dares to speak up on it as a rapper.

MACKLEMORE & RYAN LEWIS - SAME LOVE feat. MARY LAMBERT (OFFICIAL VIDEO) - YouTube

[cobl04]

I hate that song so much that it almost makes me want to be homophobic.

 

Joking of course. Horrible song in my opinion, but if changes any minds...

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by Popmartijn

I don't think they were deceived. They were probably so set in their traditional mindset that they didn't take into account that 'no discrimination' also means no discrimination on sex and sexual orientation. The new law apparently contains the following phrase:

They weren't but they make it sound like they were. But they really should've donetheir jobs and read the law over carefully before signing it.

Oh well, so what? Costa Rica has joined the 21st century!

[PennyLanePHINS]

Well I'm not sure its really official, not yet anyway. Not sure what's happening with that, guess we'll find out soon.

[PennyLanePHINS]

It passed the final hurdle in the UK. But they won't be performed until Summer 2014 because they're going to go over pensions and all that boring stuff. Not sure why its going to take almost a year, but hey at least they legalized it.

[Galeongirl]

It's a start!

[Irvine511]

this is why it matters:

DeWine Defends Ohio Marriage Amendment Despite Calling Cincinnati Case ‘Tragic’
Wednesday July 24, 2013 3:57 PM
UPDATED: Wednesday July 24, 2013 6:36 PM

By Jim Heath

COLUMBUS, Ohio - A same sex couple in Cincinnati could unravel the constitutional amendment in Ohio that declared marriage between a man and a woman.

"The case in Cincinnati is a real tragedy. We have two individuals, two men, and one of them is dying so it is very, very sad," said Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine. "But Ohio voters made it very, very clear what they wanted to do in regard to same sex marriage. My job as attorney general is to support the law and defend the law if it's attacked in court."

DeWine says he'll lead the fight against Federal Judge Timothy Black who ordered Ohio to recognize the marriage of a terminally ill gay man on his state death certificate.

After a 20 year relationship, Jim Obergefell and John Arthur were married in Maryland onboard a special medical jet earlier this month.

Arthur suffers from Lou Gerhig's Disease and cannot travel without medical support.

"I want what any other couple in the state would receive and that's recognition," said Obergefell. "When your spouse passes away, do you want your marriage recognized? Or when you pass away, do you want your spouse to have your marriage recognized? That's why it's important to me."

Black's temporary ruling will allow Obergefell to be listed as the spouse on the death certificate and enable Arthur to be buried where he wants.

"There are other long term implications that go beyond his life," said DeWine. "The survivor under this order would be able to take full advantage under Ohio tax law of being a surviving spouse. He would be able to take advantage under federal law, I assume, for Social Security and any other benefits that he might be entitled to as a result of being a spouse."

DeWine says he expects the case to reach the 6th Circuit, before ultimately being decided by the US Supreme Court.

Ian James from FreedomOhio says voters could solve this marriage issue long before the courts.

"This case is going to take years," James said. "I think everybody knows it could take five years or 60 months. We're going to be able to solve this problem with a vote of the people in November 2014."

James says despite questions over the timing, the Marriage Equality Amendment will be on the ballot next year. He also credits the couple for putting a real face on the marriage debate.

"I think we're going to look back and see these two gentlemen, and their sad story that is being told, on the foundation of love," said James. "They have availed themselves to the public and they're both to be commended."

With DeWine up for reelection next year, his Democratic opponent David Pepper has already raised the issue and criticized the Republican incumbent for not showing support for the couple.

"This case is a truly sad example of constitutional rights being violated," said Pepper. "I respectfully call upon DeWine to recognize the clear Constitutional wrongs taking place here and allow this couple to spend their final weeks together in dignity."

DeWine says he's fine with ultimately leaving the issue to Ohio voters.

"Some states have gone one way, Ohio has not gone that way," said DeWine. "And we should allow the states to work this out state-by-state, respect the citizens of Ohio and respect the Ohio constitution."

DeWine Defends Ohio Marriage Amendment Despite Calling Cincinnati Case ‘Tragic’ | WBNS-10TV Columbus, Ohio

[martha]

I saw a former student of mine this evening. He was in fourth or fifth grade when I had him, and now he's most likely close to finishing high school. He's on the Spectrum, which can make his life challenging anyway, and he's clearly gay, which was not evident in elementary school.


I started to think about all these folks who worry themselves silly over the children of gay parents, but apparently don't really have any concerns about gay children. If they did, how could they possibly support separate but equal? How could they raise their own children to think that this former student of mine deserves anything less than what they want for their own kids? My immediate thought as he walked away with his dog was that I hope these people don't tell their kids that their gay classmates are somehow inferior to them. Because that's just what this young man doesn't need.