06-03-2004 22:29									#121
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Elok I don't see why two gay guys shouldn't be allowed to adopt-I've never heard of any studies done that suggest being raised by gays screws kids up.

Can anyone provide a link for a LONG-TERM study on this issue? Me thinks we are peeing in the wind with assumptions here.

	07-03-2004 00:33									#122
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Arrian I meant a possible cap on the DEDUCTIONS for the kids - the benifits. You seem to think I'm trying to restrict childbirth. -Arrian

Heh... jumped the gun.

quote: Any child deduction credits should be given regardless of the genders of the parents, since it is ultimately for the benefit of the kids. Just don't give it to people above a certain annual income level.

I'm thinking that with as expensive as kids are, and with as much extra buying as they require, the sales tax revenues alone would generally cover a deduction in a year if the deduction is the same for every family with kids.

quote: Molly, if you keep the issue of gay marriage focused on the right of two people to bond together and obtain the same rights to property and privileges that married folk normally have and keep the matter of kids completely out of the picture, you will get sympathy and support. Poo-pooing the family issue and contending that kids are not best raised with mom and dads in a stable, loving relationships can only alienate people otherwise inclined to support you. Almost everyone is convinced (at least here in America) that raising kids in traditional familes is best.

Marginal agreement from me... it depends on the role-model availability. A lot of times single-parent families, or from what I understand of why it's said traditional is best, is because the (generally) male role-model is missing.

If the missing role-model is replaced by either extended family members or a family friend, the 'traditional' family isn't as important. The problem is finding that good missing role-model.

quote: And the arrogant, narrow-minded belief that kids raised by two parents are somehow superior to kids raised by single parents will alienate adults who were raised as children, by single parents -- not to mention alientating people who have the common decency to respect those who are different from them.

Yes, because those people should be drug out into the street and shot.

I think I made my point simply in response to Ned.

quote: No. At least I've never seen even one valid benefit articulated (I don't count "keeping bigots happy" as a benefit to society).

quote: In Ned's sort-of defense, it's hard to argue that two parents aren't better for a child than one, MrFun. I don't think it makes them "superior" to single-parented kids, but it's certainly a more stable environment. With that said, I don't see why two gay guys shouldn't be allowed to adopt-I've never heard of any studies done that suggest being raised by gays screws kids up.

There really hasn't been enough time for a study to be done on that situation, but I agree that it's doubtful that the child comes away any worse-off...

My big beef is people having kids when they can't support them long-term, so if the adoption agency deems them to be worthy (income wise along with everything else) why not let them adopt?

quote: Can anyone provide a link for a LONG-TERM study on this issue? Me thinks we are peeing in the wind with assumptions here.

You're right... but we can't really assume anything in the opposite direction either.

	07-03-2004 00:45									#123
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Flameflash - I'm really not trying to be argumentative on this subject. My politics lean to libertarianism, hence other peoples sex lives are not an issue to me. I am concerned about the 'ideal' situation for children and I see patterning as important. I am open to being proven wrong but it has yet to be done. The fact is - we don't know the longterm effects (to the best of my knowledge anyway), hence my question.

I agree, assumptions can not be made either way on the evidence presented, but if you reread the thread, most posts (either way on the issue) are making just such assumptions.

	07-03-2004 01:00									#124
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Wezil ... I agree, assumptions can not be made either way on the evidence presented, but if you reread the thread, most posts (either way on the issue) are making just such assumptions.

Hey, I completly agree with you. The thing is, society still isn't sure what makes a good parent for the most part IMHO since every kid is different.

My wife, for example, turned out better than me, probably, yet her parents sucked. Both sets of them (she was adopted at 6.)

I, on the other hand, adopted as an infant into a silver spooned family have now been reminded of how 'the other half' live since my mother (only surviving parent) wasn't very supportive of the marriage.

Now we have two kids, and while I'm told that I'm a good parent by other observers, I have to credit how smart my son is as well... along with what I remember from my father (and home videos).

I know my wife constantly is worried about being a bad mom due to her past parental role-models, and yet I think she's better than I.

All it does is show that even the definition of parenting is still up in the air as far as I'm concerned and so as long as the couple, or the individual, long term can provide for the basic needs of a child (food, shelter, clothing) who are we to make any other further judgements until abuse (mental or physical) is proven?

	07-03-2004 01:16									#125
	Support Apolyton

Agreed. Good parents/people come from awful homes and vice versa. Unfortunately we need statistical evidence upon which to make such decisions as it applies to public policy. A 'gut feeling' doesn't cut it for me. I would err on the side of caution until such evidence is available.

As to marriage/civil unions (the topic of the thread after all...) - My preference would be to take marriage completely out of the legal realm and make it the exclusive jurisdiction of religion. The State will recognise Civil Unions of all that apply and qualify (age requirement for example).

Chuches/mosques/synagogues can 'marry' at their discretion.

Otherwise I see an another conflict down the road when 'non-traditional' couples use the courts to force religious institutions to marry couples against the beliefs of the religion. Not such an absurd prediction for one that twenty years ago could never envision how far and fast the 'gay marriage' movement has come.

	07-03-2004 01:19									#126
	Full PM-box? Change here!

So we gay people are unfit to have children, wezil? All we demand is marriage, and equal rights.

	07-03-2004 01:29									#127
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo So we gay people are unfit to have children, wezil? All we demand is marriage, and equal rights.

Boy that's in no way what was said.

	07-03-2004 01:29									#128
	Support Apolyton

Perhaps someone would be good enough to define this 'traditional family' with specific references to history, rather than wishful thinking, or religious or political ideology.....

Two parents are not necessarily better than one- not if one of them is an abusive alcoholic, or one is a drug addict, as opposed to a caring single parent trying their best to bring up children in a loving environment.

And even if they were better than one- given that in modern Western societies so much of the childrearing burden has been placed on the mother/wife, doesn't this then mean we should be encouraging two lesbians to have children?

	07-03-2004 01:32									#129
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

While I agree with you molly, I'll also attempt to define this 'traditional family' from how I understand it:

I picture American 50s with the added bonus that women work and are more politically aware, active, and the self-worth increases of both parents having a career actually improves their parenting skills.

Then there's the more cynical 'traditional' family:

Single mother.

The last was just my thinking on current, unfortunate trends as I see it, it's not based in anything other than my dissapopinted opinion.

	07-03-2004 01:42									#130
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by FlameFlash While I agree with you molly, I'll also attempt to define this 'traditional family' from how I understand it: I picture American 50s with the added bonus that women work and are more politically aware, active, and the self-worth increases of both parents having a career actually improves their parenting skills.

Well you see, in part that's my point: I knew a 'traditional family' in London, where the father had to leave for work before his children were out of bed in the mornings. Then when he arrived home, his children had already gone to bed.

In effect, his wife was the sole parent seen by the children. His wasn't the only case of an 'absent' working father who spent hardly any time with their children, whether through choice or economic necessity.

Ideals very rarely match experienced reality, and in fact are just so much propaganda for shiny haired, shiny teethed politicians and religionistas.

	07-03-2004 01:43									#131
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Ming: The way I see it, the big issue here is separation of church and state. That people are viewing a legal contract with religious fervor at all is a bad thing IMO. I'm not saying that a civil marriage can't have tremendous spiritual significance, but that significance will stem from the feelings and strengths of the individual people concerned, not the ceremony itself.

That's actually the main reason I began the thread, to be honest. I'm tired of the GOP trinity of "America, apple pie, and that Jesus fella I hear such nice things about." Can we all agree that, when church and state cease to be separated, it's very bad news for the former as well as the latter?

	07-03-2004 01:44									#132
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I won't even try to define traditional - that was why I put it between ' '

Giancarlo - Not what I said but that's OK. Flame away. I explained my thoughts on marriage/civil unions. I would accord gays the same LEGAL status as any other couple. This is a problem to you apparently?

Molly - My views can't be any further from religious roots - I'm an atheist. And yes, you are absolutely right. There are some awful two parent 'traditional' (notice the quotes) families out there where a child would undoubtably be better off in a gay household. No question about that. The issue is one of the society as a whole and not one, two, or a handful of anecdotes. Statistically children from single parent families are in greater danger of a number of 'bad results' than those from two parent families. This doesn't mean every single parent does a crappy job. Hence preference for adoption is given to two parent families - no? My claim is that we have no statistical evidence over the long-term as it relates to children raised in gay households. If you have such evidence please present it for I would love to agree with you.

	07-03-2004 01:57									#133
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Elok Ming: The way I see it, the big issue here is separation of church and state. That people are viewing a legal contract with religious fervor at all is a bad thing IMO. I'm not saying that a civil marriage can't have tremendous spiritual significance, but that significance will stem from the feelings and strengths of the individual people concerned, not the ceremony itself. That's actually the main reason I began the thread, to be honest. I'm tired of the GOP trinity of "America, apple pie, and that Jesus fella I hear such nice things about." Can we all agree that, when church and state cease to be separated, it's very bad news for the former as well as the latter?

And there somebody goes with the current understanding and practice of US Constitutional Law... let alone the fact that the intent of the separation of chuch and state was only to keep a national church from ever being established.

At the time of ratification there were at least two, maybe three state churches that eventually dissolved not because of court cases, but because there was no longer a need for them.

The whole prayer in schools crap, cities who use a Christian symbol on their seals, that's not covered by the Constitution as it was written, it's covered by the common law that has resulted from 200 years of constitutional inference and interpretation.

The funniest thing about this debate is Bush's claim that there were... oh great, now I can't think of the word... legislative judges as opposed to interpretive judges when the fact of the matter is those judges in Mass. were actually more in-line with the founder's thinking...

Of course, if the Mass. decision was in regards to the Mass. constitution then this whole thing is moot thanks to the beauty of Federalism.

	07-03-2004 02:05									#134
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Wezil I won't even try to define traditional - that was why I put it between ' ' My claim is that we have no statistical evidence over the long-term as it relates to children raised in gay households. If you have such evidence please present it for I would love to agree with you.

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/001061.html


Follow the links to the ACLU and legal brief studies.

	07-03-2004 02:11									#135
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Molly - Thanx. I will read the links you posted (except 1st one which I can't access here at work...). Hopefully I can find time during work tomorrow to respond.

Btw, do you consider 'two decades' long-term as it applies to outcomes of childrearing? Twenty year olds - max?

	07-03-2004 02:22									#136
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Wezil Molly - Thanx. I will read the links you posted (except 1st one which I can't access here at work...). Hopefully I can find time during work tomorrow to respond. Btw, do you consider 'two decades' long-term as it applies to outcomes of childrearing? Twenty year olds - max?

Turn it the other way around- ask how long homosexuality has been decriminalized even in 'progressive' Western industrialized countries, and you might see why there aren't older studies of lesbian and gay parenting. Decriminalized only in 1967 in the United Kingdom*.

Besides which, noone promoting 'traditional families' ever seems to look at burgeoning divorce rates and say- 'well, gee, these things sure don't seem to work too well- let's think of something else.'

*The Wolfenden Report and reform

In 1957 the Wolfenden Committee published its report. The Committee recommended that consensual homosexual behaviour between adults – over 21 – should be decriminalised, except in the armed forces.
In 1960 the Homosexual Law Reform Society held its first public meeting. Over 1000 people attended.
In 1967, ten years after Wolfenden, Leo Abse introduced the Sexual Offences Bill 1967 with support from Roy Jenkins, then the Labour Home Secretary.

http://www.stonewall.org.uk/stonewa...exual_offences/

	07-03-2004 02:31									#137
	Increase Your PM Length

Molly, et al., I think you have to see the movie Antoine Fisher to even begin to understand the emotional needs of a child to be part of his own family.

We subsidize home ownership in a very major way here in the US. I would suspect that home ownership is the single greatest subsidy in the US. Why do we do this? Because we believe that home owners, particularly men, are more responsible citizens.

In the same manner, married men are far more responsible than unmarried men. That is one of the reasons we subsidize marriages regardless of whether there are children.

As for children, it is self-evident they are happier and better adjusted as a whole if they are raised by their own parents. This does not suggest that every marriage is happy and that every mom and dad are good moms and dads. But on the whole, I think it is almost self-evident that a kid's own parents will care more for the kid and take better care of him or her than strangers. How many kids prefer having their own dad around rather than a stepdad, just as one example?

When it comes to kids placed for adoption, it just seems to me that we favor the traditional family model if there is a choice. If there is no choice, then OK, as adoptive parents will undoubtedly take better care of a kid than a series of strangers in foster homes.

BTW, I assume, without evidence that married gays and lesbians would similarly be more responsible citizens than unmarried. If this assumption is correct, society should promote gay marriage just as much as it does other marriages.

	07-03-2004 02:31									#138
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I agree re- divorce stats. But I've already said single parent families fall below the ideal statistically.

I understand the changes in the law are relatively new hence a lack of GOOD data. Hence my preference to wait for such data.

A quick review of the links you provided do not impress me. The two main briefs cited (Delong v. Delong and Boswell v. Boswell) use old sources (amplifying the good data problem). Most references are to 80's and early 90's reasearch with some references even older. Where is the new stuff?

I'll confess I didn't read the pro-same-sex site. The conclusions would be obvious and suspect.

	07-03-2004 02:52									#139
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ned In the same manner, married men are far more responsible than unmarried men.

How extremely presumptuous and simple-minded of you.

	07-03-2004 03:07									#140
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

MrFun, Ned's talking statistically, give it a rest.

As far as the divorce rates go, at least in the US they're flawed statistically, so we really can't give it much credence.

	07-03-2004 03:08									#141
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by MrFun How extremely presumptuous and simple-minded of you.

This is well known, Mr.Fun. I find it interesting that the statement is even under scrutiny.

	07-03-2004 04:17									#142
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Wezil Giancarlo - Not what I said but that's OK. Flame away. I explained my thoughts on marriage/civil unions. I would accord gays the same LEGAL status as any other couple. This is a problem to you apparently?

What we demand is civil marriage. Civil unions are a merely inadequate. Let me explain: Some states may choose to recognize civil unions and others would not. The government must recognize same-sex civil marriage and grant all the rights a heterosexual marriage would be granted. Civil unions do not afford these rights.

	07-03-2004 07:09									#143
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Cullions. I have a fair amount of liqueur in me, FF; are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? Be less subtle!

I'm not talking so much about the absolutely rigid separation of church and state so much as I am about the danger of a religiously-oriented state becoming a religion itself. There's no doctrine in government, and in ours there's nothing but one guy put up there by the fickle moods of mob mentality (I'm in an anti-democratic mood tonight, I guess). The government is worthy of no more or less reverence than humanity itself.

EDIT: smiley maintenance.

Last edited by Elok on 07-03-2004 at 07:17

	07-03-2004 07:18									#144
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Would somebody please explain why religions should hold a monopoly on the term marriage.

People seem to be arguing that govenment should do civil "unions" while marriages only be performed by some relgion... I see this as just rolling over and playing dead for the relgion crowd... Why should any single religion be able to dictate who can get married if they aren't even members of the religion. Why should they have that right to impose their moral point of view on others... By saying governments can't marry people... you are giving religion the power over the state... which is not seperation of church and state.

	07-03-2004 07:35									#145
	Tired of ads?

To the religionists on this forum: What about heterosexual atheists that want to get married? Should they also be barred from getting married?

	07-03-2004 07:42									#146
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

By saying governments should marry at all you are stepping outside the proper bounds of government, which is to impose order on society, not to decide morals or profound spiritual truths. The Gov't. shouldn't "marry" couples in the traditional, sacramental sense of the word, any more than legal contracts should include provisions for the signers dying and being reincarnated. So far as the Federal Government is concerned, marriage should be nothing more than a set of legal rights granted within the context of a legally binding agreement. If you think it goes further than that, well, that's for you to decide. If you don't want to be "religious," in case of, Idunno, buddha-cooties or something, you can form a philosophical society of Ain't Married Life Swell. There's no restriction of rights involved, it's just not the government's job to perform.

	07-03-2004 07:52									#147
	Increase Your PM Length

GC, if I qualify as a "religionist," I say sure, if you mean "marry" in the same sense as the US is now debating gay marriage. Ultimately the government has no right to make religions perform sacraments against their will, but it has no reason to deny equal rights based on an opinion that is not the slightest bit relevant to civic duty.

	07-03-2004 07:53									#148
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Elok GC, if I qualify as a "religionist," I say sure, if you mean "marry" in the same sense as the US is now debating gay marriage. Ultimately the government has no right to make religions perform sacraments against their will, but it has no reason to deny equal rights based on an opinion that is not the slightest bit relevant to civic duty.

Civil marriage anybody? And you still didn't answer my question, religionist.

	07-03-2004 07:57									#149
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo What we demand is civil marriage. Civil unions are a merely inadequate. Let me explain: Some states may choose to recognize civil unions and others would not. The government must recognize same-sex civil marriage and grant all the rights a heterosexual marriage would be granted. Civil unions do not afford these rights.

Then you oppose Kerry's position that this is a state matter?

	07-03-2004 07:59									#150
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Ming Would somebody please explain why religions should hold a monopoly on the term marriage. People seem to be arguing that govenment should do civil "unions" while marriages only be performed by some relgion... I see this as just rolling over and playing dead for the relgion crowd... Why should any single religion be able to dictate who can get married if they aren't even members of the religion. Why should they have that right to impose their moral point of view on others... By saying governments can't marry people... you are giving religion the power over the state... which is not seperation of church and state.

Explain to me Ming why the government should be involved at all in defining who should be married and who should not?