Pro-life vid of day: Pregnant “man” to appeal refusal of divorce
by LauraLoo
“Pregnant man” Thomas Beatie is upset after a judge refused to grant him a divorce from his estranged wife – and he’s willing to take the fight all the way to the Supreme Court.
Beatie, a transgender male, is appealing an Arizona judge’s decision regarding his divorce from Nancy Beatie on the grounds the marriage was never legal since Beatie couldn’t prove he was a man during their nuptials – and the state doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage.
He states:
This is not Beatie v. Beatie. This is the State of AZ versus transgender people, human reproductive rights, and fairness under the law.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEc2_QC9eWE[/youtube]
Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.
[HT: TMZ]
Jun.26, 2013 12:00 pm |
Video of the day |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
You don’t get it both ways “Thomas”. You want to be seen as a man, treated as a man but play the woman card when it suits you for a divorce. You’re a sick person and you need healing.
Buckle up.
This is only going to keep happening.
Even though all we have heard for years is “no it won’t.”
Let’s see, they don’t want to be together anymore, the judge says you weren’t married anyway, so what’s the problem? Sounds to me like much ado for media attention. S/He must have been feeling ignored by the tabloids lately.
Sydney, I don’t see how he’s “playing the woman card” in the divorce. It’s the court that played the woman card. He’s been consistent re: wanting legal treatment as a male.
Well DOMA was struck down, so hopefully this issue won’t come up again.
And Sydney, Kelsey is correct. Thomas isn’t the one who wants to be treated legally as a woman.
“This is only going to keep happening.
Even though all we have heard for years is “no it won’t.””
What are you talking about “no it won’t”? I don’t remember anyone ever saying that same gender or transgender couples would never get divorced.
This sort of insanity is only beginning. Shortly, there will be more gay divorces than gay marriages.
I know that sounds like it is mathematically impossible, but even so…. They’ll find a way.
As opposed to the sacred covenant of three divorces and four marriages for one dude lol. Or Vegas drunk drive through weddings. Or the 50% heterosexual divorce rate.
As opposed to the sacred covenant of three divorces and four marriages for one dude lol. Or Vegas drunk drive through weddings. Or the 50% heterosexual divorce rate.
And so the truth comes out. This is what you think about marriage. I have seen this view from most people who support same-sex marriage for quite some time and I’m baffled by it. They believe marriage is total crap and “just a piece of paper” – unless gay people want one. Then it’s all about love, peace and happiness. Got it.
I’m not sure what you are getting at, Jack. Are you saying that the modern abuse of marriage is already insane, so we might as well add exponentially more confusion?
Are you saying that moderns don’t take marriage seriously anyway, so we might as well let the homosexual couples play at it, too?
“As opposed to the sacred covenant of three divorces and four marriages for one dude lol. Or Vegas drunk drive through weddings. Or the 50% heterosexual divorce rate.”
I think this is really good point, Jack, and one that us traditional marriage supporters should not blow off lightly. Though we may disagree on teh nature of marriage, I think we can all agree that the “assault” happened a long time ago, with things like what jack is describing being the norm. Given that we’ve caved on many issues concerning marriage and that indeed, Vegas drive-throughs, multiple marriages, and casual (not all of course) divorce is the norm, it’s no surprise that traditional marriage is not taken seriously by those we wish to convince.
No Kel, I think that that civil, legal governmental recognition is a different thing than religious marriage. I don’t think that makes me all that different from religious people, honestly. I don’t think you see your marriage as easily ended, there’s a difference between your legal ties (which can be ended through divorce for a multitude of reasons) and your religious ties (which, if I understand the general meaning of marriage in most Christian denomination that there are very few legit reasons for divorce, and those who “divorce” without those reasons are still married in the eyes of God. What God has joined together let no man tear apart, and all that). The problem is that those opposed to gay marriage recognition at a legal level seem to think that the religious definition of marriage should apply at a state and federal level, which I don’t think is right.
Actually if you ask me every couple who wants one, straight or gay, should get a civil union or a domestic partnership, and the language of marriage shouldn’t be used legally. That should be a religious domain, and those gay-friendly churches can marry gay couples and others can choose not to. That’s my ideal solution. But neither side seems to like it.
And Kel I don’t think I’ve ever made the “love” argument for gay marriage, I think it’s quite a weak one and not really what I think the argument should be about.
“I don’t think I’ve ever made the “love” argument for gay marriage, I think it’s quite a weak one and not really what I think the argument should be about. ”
I’m glad to hear that, Jack. Though of course I am disheartened at the news today, I always appreciate that you are thoughtful about this issue and are not willing to accept any argument in favor of your position.
“I’m not sure what you are getting at, Jack. Are you saying that the modern abuse of marriage is already insane, so we might as well add exponentially more confusion?
Are you saying that moderns don’t take marriage seriously anyway, so we might as well let the homosexual couples play at it, too?”
See my response to Kel, I think the legal definition of marriage is a different thing than how people personally see marriage for religious and other reasons. And obviously, the legal definition of marriage isn’t what you guys see marriage as. I don’t think that a religious definition of marriage is appropriate at a federal and state level, not everyone wishes to follow that.
Actually if you ask me every couple who wants one, straight or gay, should get a civil union or a domestic partnership, and the language of marriage shouldn’t be used legally. That should be a religious domain, and those gay-friendly churches can marry gay couples and others can choose not to. That’s my ideal solution. But neither side seems to like it.
Ok, wow. This is actually what I think, too. So… we agree on this.
Let’s mark this day in our calendars. :D
it’s no surprise that traditional marriage is not taken seriously by those we wish to convince.
As a child of divorce myself, I do see the point. The problem is that most people I know who support gay marriage are actually AGAINST marriage itself, want no part of it, are divorced, or have a very low view of marriage generally. And that, to me, is what seems so strange. Like Brangelina saying marriage was just a piece of paper but later saying that until all gay people can marry, they won’t either. I mean, seriously, WTH?? I don’t get that.
“I’m glad to hear that, Jack. Though of course I am disheartened at the news today, I always appreciate that you are thoughtful about this issue and are not willing to accept any argument in favor of your position.”
Well I try not to, I think that sometimes the way that gay rights activists go about their thing is wrong.
If it makes you feel better, Bobby, if there comes a time in the US where Catholic Churches are sued for not performing same sex marriages I’ll be on your side about that! But I really think religious protections in the US are strong enough that won’t happen.
“if there comes a time in the US where Catholic Churches are sued for not performing same sex marriages I’ll be on your side about that!”
I know :) Thanks.
“Ok, wow. This is actually what I think, too. So… we agree on this.
Let’s mark this day in our calendars. ”
Lol duly noted. :) But honestly, I don’t think it will be implemented, because both sides seem pretty entrenched in having “marriage” recognized legally, whether it’s just for straight people but for both. Maybe it would help if religious people could just decide to view all civil “marriage”, gay and straight, as civil unions and only recognize relgious marriages within their congregations. Actually I think the CC does a form of this, they have their sacramental marriages versus everyone else’s non-sacramental marriages.
“Actually I think the CC does a form of this, they have their sacramental marriages versus everyone else’s non-sacramental marriages.”
Sort of. According to Catholic teaching, a marriage between any two non-baptized people is what is called a “natural” marriage, meaning it is, like you said, non sacramental. If one member becomes baptized, the marriage then automatically becomes sacramental, if I recall correctly. Then a valid marriage between two people, at least one of which is baptized, is a sacramental marriage automatically, regardless if it is in teh Catholic Church or not (so long as it is indeed a valid marriage). This is all a bit beside the point, but hey, anything to distract myself.
My great concern is the persecution this will bring to those who belong to the faith community who do not believe they should have to perform ceremonies for gay couples, and for religiously affiliated groups like adoption agencies who hold to the male-female-marrieds only philosophy.
I truly am concerned for religious freedom and also about the commodification of children that has become so entrenched in our society. It’s only going to get worse.
“Sort of. According to Catholic teaching, a marriage between any two non-baptized people is what is called a “natural” marriage, meaning it is, like you said, non sacramental. If one member becomes baptized, the marriage then automatically becomes sacramental, if I recall correctly. Then a valid marriage between two people, at least one of which is baptized, is a sacramental marriage automatically, regardless if it is in teh Catholic Church or not (so long as it is indeed a valid marriage). This is all a bit beside the point, but hey, anything to distract myself.”
That’s interesting, thanks for explaining it. I didn’t realize the CC recognized baptism in other churches (I’m assuming only Christian churches of course lol). I suppose that means that technically my marriage was sacramental then, unless if one person being an unbeliever means no sacrament.
Jack,
Well DOMA was struck down, so hopefully this issue won’t come up again.
Nope. It’s all been settled, nice and tidy. Just like Roe v. Wade.
Yes, baptism with teh proper matter and form and understanding of the trinity is always valid. It is worth noting that while teh Catholic Church recognizes Protestant baptisms as valid, it does not recognize LDS or Jehovah Witnesses baptism as valid since their concept of God is fundamentally different (i.e. non-trinitarian).
“I suppose that means that technically my marriage was sacramental then, unless if one person being an unbeliever means no sacrament.”
Nope, one person being an unbeliever does not affect the sacramentality of teh marriage. The sacarmanets work ex opere operato, as teh kids say.
“As opposed to the sacred covenant of three divorces and four marriages for one dude lol. Or Vegas drunk drive through weddings. Or the 50% heterosexual divorce rate.”
It’s not very persuasive when an argument for gay marriage relies on the weakest most degraded state of marriage for inclusion.
As for this, I love watching these two reporters try to wrap their heads around this, reiterating over and over “this is confusing, so try to follow”. No, actually it’s not confusing unless you’re playing make believe. This is one woman who is confused and who has unleashed her confusion on her poor children.
“My great concern is the persecution this will bring to those who belong to the faith community who do not believe they should have to perform ceremonies for gay couples, and for religiously affiliated groups like adoption agencies who hold to the male-female-marrieds only philosophy.
I truly am concerned for religious freedom and also about the commodification of children that has become so entrenched in our society. It’s only going to get worse.”
I think there is a very, very fine line between protecting religious freedom and simple discrimination. For example I manage an apartment complex now, and there are Fair Housing federal laws that don’t allow me to turn away or have different criteria for, say, a Muslim couple if they meet the rental criteria, because religion is a protected class. Same thing about turning away a single mom, I can’t do that because familial status is a protected class. Even though both religion and having children out of wedlock is a “choice” in most cases, it’s still protected against discrimination, I can’t refuse services to them for these choices. So when it comes to whether people have the right to refuse to provide services to certain couples, I think it really depends and it’s not as black and white as people like to make it out.
*though I will say I don’t think sexual orientation is federally protected as of now, though I do believe that an argument could be made that it should be.
“It’s not very persuasive when an argument for gay marriage relies on the weakest most degraded state of marriage for inclusion. ”
Nah, I was being snarky. Like I later explained, I think that federal and state legal recognition of couples is a different thing than “marriage” the way you all are defining it. And I think it’s funny how much people focus on gay marriage when there are a gazillion divorced and remarried straight people, who didn’t have a Biblical reason for marriage, sitting in churches all over the US right now and no one really seems to care. But whatevs, churches can do what they way. Legal recognition is a completely different thing.
If the “state” doesn’t recognize the marriage…why in the heck would they need a divorce? Am I not following this correctly or am I completely missing the point?
Nancy: They want a divorce, because they need the court to settle their arguments over property and custody of the children.
Also, the transgendered guy/gal wants the state to acknowledge him as a man and their marriage as normal, so they can enjoy a divorce. As things stand now, Arizona sees two single women — and one of them has some kids.
Hi Jack,
I talk to more people than those on this blog. LOL
And private businesses ARE being sued for refusing to serve gay customers. They refuse because they don’t want to bake wedding cakes for a gay “marriage” and get slapped with a lawsuit.
But I was told that would never happen.
I’ve been told that gay “marriage” doesn’t affect anyone else.
Unless you are a small business that doesn’t want to cater to a gay couple.
Michael Medved has argued against this notion of a 50% divorce rate for years.
http://gringobushpilot.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/the-myth-of-the-fifty-percent-divorce-rate-2-2/
I am a Christian, and indeed a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect ‘history’ to be anything but a ‘long defeat’ – though it contains some samples or glimpses of final victory. – J.R.R. Tolkien
http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/from-divorce-to-same-sex-marriage-g.k.-chestertons-prophetic-defense-of-mar/
Makes me want to puke. Remember, one of the gay marriage movement’s agitators said on TV that gays make better parents. Just think of how many people — probably including the liberal Supremes – believe that!
This “pregnant man” is a medicated mutilated lesbian. Some people stretch the boundaries: they do drugs, they get tatoos, etc. This is another boundary crossed.
“And private businesses ARE being sued for refusing to serve gay customers. They refuse because they don’t want to bake wedding cakes for a gay “marriage” and get slapped with a lawsuit.
But I was told that would never happen.
I’ve been told that gay “marriage” doesn’t affect anyone else.
Unless you are a small business that doesn’t want to cater to a gay couple.”
Well, not saying I agree with suing people for not baking a cake, but I think each case should be looked at separately.
Should a gay couple be allowed to rent an apartment (assuming they meet the criteria that other applicants have)? Christian couples certainly can’t be turned down for their choices, regardless of the religious beliefs or opinions of the owners/managers.
Should an insurance company be allowed to refuse to insure a single mother? Or a gay couple? Or a Muslim family?
I know people got really upset when that Christian woman was fired for wearing her cross necklace at work, would it also be okay to protect the right of a gay person to wear a rainbow pin against the wishes of their employer?
A lot of people seem to be okay with people retaining their jobs issuing marriage licenses but refusing to issue licenses to gay couples. Would the same accommodation be appropriate for an atheist refusing to issue licenses to Christian couples?
I guess what I’m saying is that you have to balance rights (that’s why we’re against abortion, right, the baby’s right to life outweighs the mother’s right to body autonomy). I’m not convinced that people have 100% autonomy in the public to refuse services based on personal convictions.
Though I do think it’s rather ridiculous to sue anyone based on a cake.
My business. My rights.
Its not really about cake though is it?
It is about an agenda from those that scream TOLERANCE at those they have no tolerance for.
And I am going to stick with real lawsuits that are happening today. Not ones that you and I can sit around and conjure up.
Its not really about cake though is it?
^ This.
Time to pray, fast, and live the Gospel as sojourners in a foreign land.
“My business. My rights.”
That’s not a 100% true. Discrimination is illegal in some businesses and for some reasons, regardless of personal conviction on the matter. The issue is whether the same protections should be extended to gay couples as well as Christian couples or other protected classes.
“And I am going to stick with real lawsuits that are happening today. Not ones that you and I can sit around and conjure up.”
There ARE real lawsuits like the ones I mentioned. Fair Housing violation lawsuits are common, for one. People being fired for not following the religious/moral code of their employer also has happened (the unmarried teacher being fired for having sex out of wedlock, for one, or people getting fired for expressing their anti-gay sentiments at work against the policy of their employer). I was just reading about a case where a woman was fired for refusing to allow a transgender woman to use the women’s changing room, I can’t remember the store, but their policy was to allow transgender people to use the restroom of their identified gender.
If it’s “my business, my rights”, then people shouldn’t have a problem with these employers firing these people. It really does seem to me that sometimes people think personal conviction and personal freedom only goes one way (Christian businesses should be allowed to fire/not serve people based on sexual orientation, but other businesses shouldn’t be allowed to fire /not serve people based on Christianity that interferes with company policy). Like I said, there has to be a reasonable balance, and when rights interfere with other people’s rights there has to be some way of figuring out what groups gets protection in each instance.
Oh, there’s Lrning, I think we had one discussion where we were talking about personal conviction in the workplace. I can’t remember where the conversation ended up though.
I can’t remember either Jack. It’s a balancing act, for sure. One that becomes more difficult as our country’s moral compass falls in the toilet.
“ One that becomes more difficult as our country’s moral compass falls in the toilet.”
Yeah.. I was pretty upset about legislators trying to recriminalize homosexuality and Evangelical groups supporting the death penalty for LGBT people in Africa. But, today was a good day for morality.
Jack, I agree. I (a Catholic) had this discussion about the mandate- if we don’t have to cover contraception because or our beliefs, could a zero population growth person refuse to cover childbirth expenses for child #3?
Hans. Thank You so much for posting that link. I too read that the 50% divorce rate was a myth based on a mistake in stats, but didn’t know where to look.
At our church, one of our best ministries is for marriage renewal. Couples that go through the retreats and special workshops rave about them and recommend them highly. But I do see a wave of persecution coming. Up until this week, it has been sporadic lawsuits here and there, but it will get worse. The Bible will be declared ‘hate speech.’ A Jewish couple has to go through steps and procedures to marry in their synagogue, and Catholic couples have to go through steps and procedures to marry in their church. But outsiders will not respect any of that, and will expect our churches and synogogues to carry on like chain supermarkets, providing customer service to all the public instead of spiritual leadership for their faithful.
Sigh. Well, last time a super-libertarian empire tried to turn us into lion poop… we converted them.
“if we don’t have to cover contraception because or our beliefs, could a zero population growth person refuse to cover childbirth expenses for child #3?”
I think the problem here is the idea that all beliefs and opinions are equally valid. The government has a vested interest in families flourishing because the stronger each individual family is, the stronger society is. IN particular, the government has a vested interest in maintaining a population of citizens, which means it has a vested interest in families having children that (at least ought to) be given treated preference over not having children from a governmental point of view. Thus there is a compelling reason for the government to want to reward having children while tolerating not having children. This is actually more of an argument for why contraception should not be covered period, but an immediate corollary is that those who object to it based on religious reasons ought not have to pay for it. There is no symmetry when it comes to a 0 population growth individual.
“I think the problem here is the idea that all beliefs and opinions are equally valid. The government has a vested interest in families flourishing because the stronger each individual family is, the stronger society is. IN particular, the government has a vested interest in maintaining a population of citizens, which means it has a vested interest in families having children that (at least ought to) be given treated preference over not having children from a governmental point of view. Thus there is a compelling reason for the government to want to reward having children while tolerating not having children. This is actually more of an argument for why contraception should not be covered period, but an immediate corollary is that those who object to it based on religious reasons ought not have to pay for it. There is no symmetry when it comes to a 0 population growth individual.”
This is actually a fairly strong argument for why legal recognition of marriage for non-straight individuals is necessary. Like it or not (you guys don’t, but that’s really besides the fact), LGBT people have children, usually the biological children of one of the people in the relationship. These children deserve to have access to being covered by health insurance by the non-biological parent, or the non-biological parent needs to be able to make medical decisions for the kid, for example. Or, the couple should get the same marriage benefits at a state and federal level that any other family with children would get, because it helps the kids. Punishing kids because the parent is with the wrong gender and you’re not fond of it personally is wrong.
If the whole gay marriage debate is simply over being able to extend benefits to children, I’m all for extending benefits to children. But why tie something important like benefits for children, which any reasonable person would agree with, with something controversial like the nature of marriage? It seems like if people were really interested only in the well-being of children, they would do everything they can to propose laws that are us uncontroversial as possible. It seems to me to be like if we were back in the time of racial segregation and I proposed legislation that gave equal rights to people of all colors but somehow packaged it with my economic immigration policy (or whatever) which was extremely controversial. “you don’t support my bill? You must hate people of color!” Well, no, I just don’t support teh immigration policy that is tied up with it. It seems like if it were really all about equal rights to people of color, I would do what I can to make the bill accepted by all.
”
If the whole gay marriage debate is simply over being able to extend benefits to children, I’m all for extending benefits to children. But why tie something important like benefits for children, which any reasonable person would agree with, with something controversial like the nature of marriage? It seems like if people were really interested only in the well-being of children, they would do everything they can to propose laws that are us uncontroversial as possible. It seems to me to be like if we were back in the time of racial segregation and I proposed legislation that gave equal rights to people of all colors but somehow packaged it with my economic immigration policy (or whatever) which was extremely controversial. “you don’t support my bill? You must hate people of color!” Well, no, I just don’t support teh immigration policy that is tied up with it. It seems like if it were really all about equal rights to people of color, I would do what I can to make the bill accepted by all.”
Actually like I said I don’t agree with everything the louder gay rights advocates are about, which is why I get annoyed that neither Christian groups nor gay groups seem to be okay with simply issuing the same federal and state benefits to couples and call it domestic partnerships for them both. Equal treatment under the law right there, bam. None of this arguing about what “marriage” is nonsense.
And it’s not *only* interest in the well-being of children in LGBT-headed families, though that’s a big part of it. There are other issues as well, and without tackling the whole issue (that LGBT families, with children or not, are not being treated equally under the law). And in your analogy it would depend on the immigration policy in question whether I would agree it is necessary to package that into rights being sought by those of color.
Well, I would also have a problem with domestic partnerships or civil unions broadly defined, but at least we can agree on trying to extend benefits to children. Hey, that’s a start for some common ground, ehh?
Alright, nice talkin with you as always, Jack. I got peeps coming over tonight, so I can’t be distracted by teh internet. My attention span and level of concentration is THAT poor!
The law declares a woman to be a man. (Thomas Beatie)
We want unequal things declared equal under the law. (same-sex “marriage”)
Clarity won’t come from this chaos. When the laws of men are at odds with natural law, chaos ensues.
“Clarity won’t come from this chaos. When the laws of men are at odds with natural law, chaos ensues.”
Well, you do agree with the laws of men being contrary to the Catholic theory of natural law in some cases, you’re just picking and choosing which cases you want to legally be required to follow natural law. If homosexuality is contrary to natural law you should want it criminalized altogether. Divorce and remarriage (in most cases) is contrary to natural law theory, so that should be criminalized as well. But fortunately we live in a society that isn’t theocratic and doesn’t implement one particular religion’s moral code for all of society to follow. We have to respect everyone’s rights even if we don’t like them or their lifestyles.
Pleasure as always Bobby, have fun with your friends!
“And private businesses ARE being sued for refusing to serve gay customers.” – would you support a business which refused to serve mixed marriage customers? Mormon couples? Atheist couples? Scientology couples? Muslim couples?
Reality, I think our culture jumps to lawsuits and judicial activism far too often. Why not let the market decide? If the KKK wants to open a donut shop, why not let them and let nobody buy from them? I pick and choose which business get my money and referrals. Let the people decide with their wallets, not the judges with their rulings. Did a bakery refuse service to someone? Then let the people decide whether they want to buy their cakes or not. Why is personal choice only to be used to kill children? Can’t we be trusted with personal choice over what business to patronize?
That only works for the majority, though, ninek. That’s why minority rights need and have needed protection. If you make a business refusing to serve Christians, of course you’re going to go under because most people in the US are some form of Christian or another. But if you make a business that refuses to serve Muslims, you’re not going to see any censure because they are simply too small of a group in the US to make a difference to your profits. So basically, minorities get punished and the majority has no reason to change their business practices.
When people say things like this it worries me. Do you think Fair Housing and other anti-discrimination laws should just be repealed?
“I think our culture jumps to lawsuits and judicial activism far too often.” – I have to agree.
The fact is that there are laws against discrimination. And being gay is not against the law. And America is not a theocracy.
“Can’t we be trusted with personal choice over what business to patronize?” – we would like to think so. A gay couple want to order a cake and are refused. An atheist tries to order flowers for another atheist and is refused. An atheist group wish to hold a meeting and are refused. Tis baseless discrimination. I don’t refuse to provide my services to those of faith.
I was in a shop owned by a monk who escaped China. He had some excellent religious artifacts and I very much wanted to buy a set of items once used in a monastery. He refused to sell them to me because I was an American women and he believed I would not appreciate them. I respected his choice, though it made me very sad for that afternoon. I was able to find the same items on the internet and bought them from another seller.
According to some people, I should have sued him. I knew I could get similar items elsewhere. Tolerance: it was once putting up with something even if you didn’t agree. I didn’t need his store’s items because there are other outlets. Bakeries are like that.
Jobs are not. You may be uniquely qualified for a job, and it’s not like you can go down the street and find the same job. Job discrimination is not the same as a store that doesn’t want to sell something to someone.
When abortion advocates see how upset we are with the slaughter of humans, they simply laugh it off and tell us to just put up with it, to just tolerate it. The same people who think there should be micro-managing laws for everything throw all that out the window if they want to abort a child. Don’t like baker discrimination? Sue! Don’t like abortion? Tolerate it.
Hypocrisy, they name is abortion advocate.
Abortion is discrimination against very small human PEOPLE.
Oh, and the monk sold me an excellent piece of silver jewelry at a steal of a price; I think he felt a little bad.
“that LGBT families, with children or not, are not being treated equally under the law”
That’s because they are not equal under the law – meaning that they are not the same as a heterosexual couple and society does not have the same interest in a homosexual coupling as it does in a heterosexual one. Marriage is a attempt to stabilize the relationship that produces children and bind that unit to the greatest extent possible, not to amalgamate some adults who could provide benefits to them (though I too have no problem extending benefits to kids or even to gay partners – that just has nothing to do with marriage).
“If homosexuality is contrary to natural law you should want it criminalized altogether.”
No, natural law doesn’t need to be enforced through the criminal system.
I think Jack’s 7:28pm comment summed it up rather well.
“That’s because they are not equal under the law – meaning that they are not the same as a heterosexual couple and society does not have the same interest in a homosexual coupling as it does in a heterosexual one. Marriage is a attempt to stabilize the relationship that produces children and bind that unit to the greatest extent possible, not to amalgamate some adults who could provide benefits to them (though I too have no problem extending benefits to kids or even to gay partners – that just has nothing to do with marriage).”
And I believe that gay couples need this same stabilization for the sake of them and their kids. Full stop. This is why I don’t agree with “marriage” language being used legally, because you guys just won’t see legal and religious marriage as a different thing. I think supporting monogamous couples regardless of their gender combination is a good for society. It lessens disease, promotes mental health, etc etc etc. It also helps their kids. And luckily my side is winning, and we’ll get to see these benefits soon.
” No, natural law doesn’t need to be enforced through the criminal system.”
Why not? You want it enforced legally in other instances, how do you pick and choose?
Beatie, a transgender male, is appealing an Arizona judge’s decision regarding his divorce from Nancy Beatie on the grounds the marriage was never legal since Beatie couldn’t prove he was a man during their nuptials – and the state doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage.
Wait. How am I not understanding this? ”Thomas” wants a divorce. The judge said no. “Thomas” is appealing saying the marriage was never legal because she was never a man or is it the judge says no divorce needed because the marriage was never legal because Thomas was never a man? The way it was worded didn’t make it abundantly clear to me.
Thomas Beattie is complaining because he wants to be legally recognized as a male, and therefore his marriage would have been a male/female marriage and legal in Arizona. If he didn’t legally change his gender though, I don’t know if he has a case, because same sex marriage is currently illegal in AZ.
“Jobs are not. You may be uniquely qualified for a job, and it’s not like you can go down the street and find the same job. Job discrimination is not the same as a store that doesn’t want to sell something to someone.”
Excellent point. Similarly, potentially being sued (note: not necessarily LOSING that suit) because you refused to bake a cake for somebody is not the same as being denied the opportunity to form a stable, legally recognized partnership with a person you’re committed to. Enough with the persecution strawman, guys.
Though some nasty Yelp reviews might have a swifter and potentially more damaging impact than a lawsuit :)
“Though some nasty Yelp reviews would might make for a swifter and potentially more damaging impact on a business than a lawsuit ”
Yeah, I really think litigation should be used for things a little more serious than refusal of unnecessary 0service, if they were denied necessities like a place to live or medical care that’s a lot different. Public censure would probably be best. It just feeds into the persecution complex to sue.
In the case of the baker, his objection was to making a cake for a same-sex wedding. He has no problem serving homosexual customers who request birthday cakes and etc. (see here).
Given that fact, how can one claim that the baker discriminates against gay people? If his goal was discrimination against gay people, wouldn’t he have refused to make any cakes for them at all?
And using that logic, shouldn’t Shop-Rite be sued for discriminating against Caucasians, or perhaps Germans, given that they refused to decorate a cake for 3-year-old Adolf Hitler?
Should a pro-choice baker be allowed to refuse to make a cake for the local Right to Life banquet?
“And I believe that gay couples need this same stabilization for the sake of them and their kids.”
There are no kids that result from a gay relationship, only children that are brought to it. There is nothing that results from the union that requires stabilization. You’re already dealing with a breakdown in the family structure either through the breakup of the heterosexual union that produced the child or through alternate efforts that have the effect of deliberately depriving a child of a mother or a father. It is not, in any way, equal to bonding the natural family unit.
“This is why I don’t agree with “marriage” language being used legally, because you guys just won’t see legal and religious marriage as a different thing.”
Civil marriage is not a sacrament, so in that way it is different, but it should still reflect the purpose of marriage as it relates to the good of society and children.
“I think supporting monogamous couples regardless of their gender combination is a good for society. It lessens disease, promotes mental health, etc etc etc.”
That’s an argument for monogamy – not marriage.
“It also helps their kids.”
If it’s not about the adult romance then the same argument could be made for letting friends or siblings who are raising children together marry. They didn’t produce the children together, but they are in effect co-parenting and would probably appreciate the benefits. And what about polygamous couplings. They have children that actually result from their union – don’t those children deserve the stability of having their biological parents be allowed to marry?
” No, natural law doesn’t need to be enforced through the criminal system.”
Why not? You want it enforced legally in other instances, how do you pick and choose?
Well, legal is not criminal, but in what instances do you think I want natural law criminally enforced? Or since you seem to think it’s the same as Catholic teaching – where do I want Catholic belief criminally enforced? I’m actually quite libertarian and have little interest in changing behavior through law (criminal or otherwise). The question of sexual behavior is separate from the question of marriage (though gay marriage supporters like to conflate them so that they can pretend their opponents are bigots). I have no interest in the legality of any sexual behavior between consenting adults. Marriage, on the other hand, is an institution that is supposed to serve the good of society (if it doesn’t provide a benefit to society, then it has no purpose and shouldn’t exist). My argument is that that benefit, that good, is not served by a definition of marriage that includes homosexual couples because such a definition focuses the institution on the adults. It renders it meaningless. The benefits that you want for the children brought into homosexual unions do not require the union to be treated as a marriage.
“And using that logic, shouldn’t Shop-Rite be sued for discriminating against Caucasians, or perhaps Germans, given that they refused to decorate a cake for 3-year-old Adolf Hitler?”
Well they obviously don’t want to be associated with neo-Nazis, which is understandable. It’s a crying shame that kid is being punished for his parent’s actions though.
I actually don’t think litigation in these type of instances is appropriate and possibly shouldn’t be legal. It doesn’t seem to gain the results people are wanting. Like I said, social censure would work better if people wanted to put pressure on businesses.
” There are no kids that result from a gay relationship, only children that are brought to it. There is nothing that results from the union that requires stabilization. You’re already dealing with a breakdown in the family structure either through the breakup of the heterosexual union that produced the child or through alternate efforts that have the effect of deliberately depriving a child of a mother or a father. It is not, in any way, equal to bonding the natural family unit. ”
And….. so what? Those kids still need the stability of a legally and society supported family, even if it’s not the biological ideal. I actually do agree that it’s best for kids to be with their bio parents if at all possible (look at my views on adoption, they make you guys mad for some reason, which is amusing to me). A sterile adoptive couple, raising non-biological children, is “unnatural” like a mother and stepfather, and a gay biological father raising his kids with his boyfriend. All those families deserve the same opportunities and support, like legal protection and recognition as a family unit. The same protection, not called marriage legally because I don’t see how we can separate legal marriage from religious marriage in y’all’s minds.
” Civil marriage is not a sacrament, so in that way it is different, but it should still reflect the purpose of marriage as it relates to the good of society and children.”
Oh I agree, which is why I think that what we now have as legally recognized marriage should be replaced with a more inclusive model that protects couples and children in non-traditional families. We’ll stop calling all these legal arrangements marriages to make you guys happy. Keep your word, I want families treated the same.
” That’s an argument for monogamy – not marriage.”
And marriage, or in my more preferred model the legal and social recognition of a domestic partnership that treats all couples equally, promotes monogamy.
” If it’s not about the adult romance then the same argument could be made for letting friends or siblings who are raising children together marry. They didn’t produce the children together, but they are in effect co-parenting and would probably appreciate the benefits. And what about polygamous couplings. They have children that actually result from their union – don’t those children deserve the stability of having their biological parents be allowed to marry?”
You realize co-parenting friends can already marry, if they are of opposite genders, right? There’s no federal test to see if you’re actually in a sexual relationship or in love before you marry lol.
Polygamy has a long story of a lot of unpleasant issues, not the least being a lot of misogyny. I’m not sure that you can compare them. I’m talking about supporting monogamous couples by promoting legal recognition and stability.
” Well, legal is not criminal, but in what instances do you think I want natural law criminally enforced? Or since you seem to think it’s the same as Catholic teaching – where do I want Catholic belief criminally enforced? I’m actually quite libertarian and have little interest in changing behavior through law (criminal or otherwise). The question of sexual behavior is separate from the question of marriage (though gay marriage supporters like to conflate them so that they can pretend their opponents are bigots). I have no interest in the legality of any sexual behavior between consenting adults. Marriage, on the other hand, is an institution that is supposed to serve the good of society (if it doesn’t provide a benefit to society, then it has no purpose and shouldn’t exist). My argument is that that benefit, that good, is not served by a definition of marriage that includes homosexual couples because such a definition focuses the institution on the adults. It renders it meaningless. The benefits that you want for the children brought into homosexual unions do not require the union to be treated as a marriage.”
Ah, I see. That makes sense. I obviously disagree with you.
“Actually if you ask me every couple who wants one, straight or gay, should get a civil union or a domestic partnership, and the language of marriage shouldn’t be used legally.”
why just couples? why can’t several people have civil unions?
Note: In Massachusetts, Catholic charities adoption agency was forced to shut down by the state because they wouldn’t put children with homosexual couples.
“And….. so what? Those kids still need the stability of a legally and society supported family, even if it’s not the biological ideal.”
The benefit of traditional marriage is to encourage the ideal. To protect the only union capable of the ideal. You can create a situation where the adults charged with the care of a child are able to extend all necessary benefits to the child without calling the adult relationship a marriage. This push is for the adults not the kids.
“I actually do agree that it’s best for kids to be with their bio parents if at all possible (look at my views on adoption, they make you guys mad for some reason, which is amusing to me)”
And when they can’t be, you think one parent suddenly becomes irrelevant and interchangeable. So bio parents are best, but if it can’t be bio parents, then it’s fine to purposely eliminate a mother or a father. Adoption is not the ideal (no one would say that), but it can at least try to mirror the ideal for kids if we don’t get wrapped up in the desires of adults.
“You realize co-parenting friends can already marry, if they are of opposite genders, right? There’s no federal test to see if you’re actually in a sexual relationship or in love before you marry lol.”
I do realize that and I wasn’t clear. My point was more that these people don’t tend to marry, yet we don’t wring our hands about the plight of the children or urge them to marry each other as the only way to lend stability to their family situation. This is about the adults wanting social approval for their relationship with each other.
“And marriage, or in my more preferred model the legal and social recognition of a domestic partnership that treats all couples equally, promotes monogamy.”
So the purpose of marriage is to encourage monogamy? That’s why society protects it and privileges it? And are people who would otherwise be promiscuous be monogamous b/c they’re married or are such people just likely to have an open “marriage”?
“Polygamy has a long story of a lot of unpleasant issues, not the least being a lot of misogyny. I’m not sure that you can compare them. I’m talking about supporting monogamous couples by promoting legal recognition and stability.”
I know what you’re talking about, but you need to give solid reasons here. What is your definition of marriage that kids brought into homosexual relationships need stability and the societal assurance that their family is “normal”, but those born of polygamous ones do not. Many modern polygamous relationships are consensual. It’s all about the kids, right? Not about adult love affairs? So then why don’t these kids need stability?
” The benefit of traditional marriage is to encourage the ideal. To protect the only union capable of the ideal. You can create a situation where the adults charged with the care of a child are able to extend all necessary benefits to the child without calling the adult relationship a marriage. This push is for the adults not the kids.”
Of course it’s for the adults AND kids, like I said earlier in the thread. You’re pretending I’m pro-this idea I’m putting forth solely for the children’s benefits, when I’m not. That’s a big part of it, but not the only part.
” And when they can’t be, you think one parent suddenly becomes irrelevant and interchangeable. So bio parents are best, but if it can’t be bio parents, then it’s fine to purposely eliminate a mother or a father. Adoption is not the ideal (no one would say that), but it can at least try to mirror the ideal for kids if we don’t get wrapped up in the desires of adults.”
I don’t actually. I just haven’t seen real evidence, just assumptions, that a non-biologically related straight couple is preferable to a non-biological related gay couple, when it comes to adopting a child. Take it from someone who doesn’t have a good relationship with my biological parents, you can never really replace or mirror what was lost. What you all need to do, if you want to ban gays from adopting or make them last choice, is prove that they are less preferable than a straight couple. And I’ll actually support you if you can prove that. I support children being placed with couples instead of single people where possible because it’s better for them, and there is a lot of evidence that children do better raised by couples than by single parents. Don’t give me natural law, give me hard evidence, several methodological studies, etc. As I’ve seen, some studies say one thing and some say the other.
” I do realize that and I wasn’t clear. My point was more that these people don’t tend to marry, yet we don’t wring our hands about the plight of the children or urge them to marry each other as the only way to lend stability to their family situation. This is about the adults wanting social approval for their relationship with each other.”
It’s probably because there isn’t a strong movement in the US to define these people as engaging in perversion and unnaturalness, stigmatizing the family structure, is why you’re getting the push to accept the families with children of LGBT people versus the children being raised by a non-dating couple of friends. And yes, it is partially about lessening stigma and social acceptance, for the adults as well as their children. Adults and their health and lives are important as well as children. I didn’t used to agree this was a necessary goal, but I do know after thinking and reading about it.
” So the purpose of marriage is to encourage monogamy? That’s why society protects it and privileges it? And are people who would otherwise be promiscuous be monogamous b/c they’re married or are such people just likely to have an open “marriage”?”
Well, that’s one benefit to marriage. Men in particular tend to be much more promiscuous when they aren’t married, we’ll have to see how this works with gay men. But anyway, if people are hearing from puberty how they are disordered, and their inclinations are perverted, it can have the effect of contributing to the behavior that people like to rail about. If monogamy is more encouraged and promoted and supported in the LGBT community (as well as in society at large). Legally recognizing monogamous relationships can help with this.
” I know what you’re talking about, but you need to give solid reasons here. What is your definition of marriage that kids brought into homosexual relationships need stability and the societal assurance that their family is “normal”, but those born of polygamous ones do not. Many modern polygamous relationships are consensual. It’s all about the kids, right? Not about adult love affairs? So then why don’t these kids need stability?”
Because, if we’re talking about benefitting society and kids, there’s a lot of evidence that polygamy doesn’t. Honestly, if they do want to get some legal recognition equal to couples, they can fight for it and I won’t oppose them, it’s not my fight though. I do think their children deserve stability and benefits that other families get.
Sorry if my posts are a little garbled I’m pretty tired.
“I don’t actually. I just haven’t seen real evidence, just assumptions, that a non-biologically related straight couple is preferable to a non-biological related gay couple, when it comes to adopting a child…What you all need to do, if you want to ban gays from adopting or make them last choice, is prove that they are less preferable than a straight couple.”
No you need to prove that blood relationship alone is what makes the bio family the ideal. That despite the fact that every human being on the planet has a mother and a father, those two people are actually interchangeable and any two (ore more) adults are equally good once there’s no blood relationship.
“Because, if we’re talking about benefitting society and kids, there’s a lot of evidence that polygamy doesn’t. Honestly, if they do want to get some legal recognition equal to couples, they can fight for it and I won’t oppose them”
You can’t have it both ways. You argue that children exist in these families and so we need to provide the family with the societal approval and stability conferred by marriage regardless of what we think of the adult affair. Yet, in a situation where children actually arise from the union, you won’t make a stand for the stability of their situation because the relationship of the adults doesn’t benefit society? Then in the next breath you say that even though the unions do not benefit society, you would not oppose their fight to redefine marriage, which only reinforces my point that marriage becomes utterly meaningless when you redefine it to be a right of adults to have societal acceptance for their love and (usually) a further right to be considered the same as a mother and father when it comes to children.
I can’t cut and paste more, b/c I just don’t have time, but everything you’ve written is about the adults. I mean it has to be b/c kids don’t arise from gay unions. Ever. They are just brought into them. The only benefit society gets from the union would have to come from the adult relationship. I acknowledge the need to make sure kids can get needed benefits from their adult caretakers, but much more harm than good (to children and society) comes from achieving that by declaring the arrangement a marriage and purposely putting kids into them through adoption.
I have heard that there is an old African proverb that goes something like “Never tear down a fence until you know why it was put there”. Many times the consequences take years to come back to you. Pro-lifers you bring up many excellent points. I think it is American Family Asso. who just posted on their One News report that since Plan B has been promoted in Sweden their abortion rates are skyrocketing. Talked to some PCCs (pregnancy care centers) nurse managers who are seeing the same thing, these women are seeing more and more Plan B takers who you cannot deter from abortion because they took Plan B and thought they got rid of their “problem” beforehand. Jill and others is anyone else noticing this at PCCs?
If people are really interested in why the best place for men, women and children is in an intact stable married family decades of research back this up, let me know. In every category children do best with the 2 biological married parents in most instances who are responsible for their conception. (I know Jack that your story is very painful and different and I am sorry about that). The prisons are full of fatherless sons and daughters (over 70% raised by their mothers without fathers in the homes). The African American community is in shambles with a 70% out of wedlock birth rate, 40% of the abortions only making up 13% of the poplulation, btw the Hispanic and white community is working very hard to play catch up with them on out of wedlock births. The research back ups that the “world’s great empires” who bowed at the altar so-called “sexual freedom” begin the downward spiral of the devaluation of human life, justifying the human sacrifice of babies inside and outside of the womb (the PP “Dead Babies R Us’ crew and the POTUS support genocide ensuring that when a mother is promised a dead baby she will get one; have you noticed before and after Gosnell their silence has been deafening-abortion is now a “sacred right”- take it from Nancy Pelosi), the disintergration of families (the epidemic of divorce, cohabitation and adultery), and the total disregard for personal responsibliliity. I have heard many pastors and Biblical scholars relate that every civilization who decides to tear down the fence begin the path to self-destruction.
I saw an AP article over a year ago that said the divorce rate for lesbian “same-sex marriages” is 187% and the rate for male homosexuals was over 80% (most of their stats were from Sweden and the Netherlands I believe). Of course you have to get married in the first place to get a divorce and I understand since SSM the marriage rates have plummeted there and nobody bothers to get married there anymore. Another article I read documented from data that the divorce rate for couples who cohabit before marriage is usually double of that of couples who don’t “shack up” before marriage. It takes years and sometimes generations to get the true impact of recent social phenomena. Anybody remember the POTUS just “evolved” on this issue less than a year ago and now you get called a discrimanatory hateful “lynch mob” by the SCOTUS for not embracing “same-sex marriage” after thousands of years of one-man, one-woman marriage? Who would of thunk it?
“I saw an AP article over a year ago that said the divorce rate for lesbian “same-sex marriages” is 187% “
I’m no mathematician, but I’m pretty sure this is impossible.
“No you need to prove that blood relationship alone is what makes the bio family the ideal. That despite the fact that every human being on the planet has a mother and a father, those two people are actually interchangeable and any two (ore more) adults are equally good once there’s no blood relationship.”
No, I don’t believe in preemptive discrimination. If gay families are significantly worse for children, I’m perfectly willing for them to be “back ups” for children who need homes because their bio family isn’t okay, like I think single people should be “back ups” when there is no couple available to raise a child who has no biological family that is able to care for them. There needs to be factual evidence though. And honestly it shouldn’t be that hard to find. There are studies that say that they are worse, and there are studies that say it’s about the same. The studies all have methodological problems.
And I don’t think you all *really* think that a male/female couple is always preferable in every circumstance. I know that most of you wouldn’t have a problem with a grandmother raising her grandkids because her daughter/son isn’t able to. You DO think that biological and familial relationship are important, maybe even more than making sure there is a male and female parent (and as a side note, I really hope no one thinks that single bio parents should have their children taken and put in homes with heterosexual couples, barring abuse or other issues).
I have to think about the polygamy thing for a while CT, I will get back to you on it. I don’t want to commit to a position without considering it and being able to logically defend it.
“but everything you’ve written is about the adults. I mean it has to be b/c kids don’t arise from gay unions. Ever. They are just brought into them. The only benefit society gets from the union would have to come from the adult relationship. I acknowledge the need to make sure kids can get needed benefits from their adult caretakers, but much more harm than good (to children and society) comes from achieving that by declaring the arrangement a marriage and purposely putting kids into them through adoption.”
This is DEMONSTRABLY untrue. Gay people have children often, even though they were brought into rather than resulting from the gay couple. You cannot acknowledge that many children are being raised in LGBT families and then in the same breath deny that how we legally treat LGBT families affects the children.
And you haven’t proven your harm argument. You’ve made claims.
I do apologize I should have found the article before I mis-quoted it. I found the article it was ””15 Ways to Predict Divorce” by Anneli Rufus in The Daily Beast
“If you’re in a male same-sex marriage, it’s 50% more likely to end in divorce than a heterosexual marriage. If you’re in a female same-sex marriage, this figure soars to 167%.”
She credits a research team led by Stockholm University demography professor Gunnar Andersson for her stats.
(The article gives the heterosexual divorce rate iat about 40-50%-Source: David Popenoe, “The Future of Marriage in America” so I am adding our American heterosexual divorce rate with the 50% they came up with in the study in Sweden and Norway (maybe too much of a stretch) I think the rate would be higher than the over 80% I quoted. The homosexual divorce rate source: Gunnar Andersson, “Divorce-Risk Patterns in Same-Sex Marriages in Norway and Sweden,” Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, 2004) I am sorry I quoted 187% instead of the 167%.)
If we are going to pattern ourselves after someone else’s country it is probably not a bad idea to see what is going on with them since “they’ve been there, done that”. To those who are for SSM it probably won’t make a bit of difference to them.
“No, I don’t believe in preemptive discrimination.”
Nature is the preemptive discriminator. A mother and a father are required to make a child. Every person has both. You yourself admit that that unit is the ideal. You need to make a case for treating the deliberate exclusion of a mother or father as equal to the ideal. You are the one saying that it’s equal.
“And I don’t think you all *really* think that a male/female couple is always preferable in every circumstance. I know that most of you wouldn’t have a problem with a grandmother raising her grandkids because her daughter/son isn’t able to.”
I would have a problem if she was trying to use the fact that children had come into her care as a reason to call a relationship with a fellow caregiver a marriage.This ultimately isn’t about which family member to place a child with, but whether a homosexual union and heterosexual union are equal to society for the purposes of marriage.
“You DO think that biological and familial relationship are important, maybe even more than making sure there is a male and female parent”
Yes….and? Child custody is a separate issue from the definition of marriage.
“(and as a side note, I really hope no one thinks that single bio parents should have their children taken and put in homes with heterosexual couples, barring abuse or other issues).”
I hope you know me better than this by now.
“Gay people have children often, even though they were brought into rather than resulting from the gay couple. You cannot acknowledge that many children are being raised in LGBT families and then in the same breath deny that how we legally treat LGBT families affects the children.”
I don’t dispute that it affects children. I maintain that bringing kids into a union cannot make it a marriage. If it can, then ANY adults who jointly care for children should be able to claim that they are married regardless of their relationship or number.
There are ways to protect children without saying the adults are married.
Jack and CT you are having a very good discussion. Jack I do understand that you would like some documented research on the possible negative effects of children raised by SSM couples before you make a judgement and that sounds very noble but I do want to ask you how when a social phenomena is only been around a short time would you be able to get such documentation (like I said the POTUS who said just 5 years ago to Rick Warren “as a Christian I believe God is in the mix but I believe marriage is between one man and one woman” and just announced a few months ago that he had “evolved” to now not only accepting but to promoting enthusiastically SSM) how would you get the unbiased, peer-reviewed documented research to say anything less than SSM is wonderful for children. It will take generations of kids to truly know the long-term effects of this social experiment. Do you know the type of attack a researcher who says anything different would get? Who would even undertake trying to do the research when most of those is academia and the MSM is now fully in support of SSM and he/she would be ridiculed and scorned as homophobic and biased. The one comparative study that I heard about (I can’t remember his name but I think his name started with an R) a few months ago has been viciously attacked as a worthless, biased study because it did not support that SSM had positive effects but had more negative effects and outcomes on children. Everyone probably comes into this controversy with some biases so you are between a rock and a hard place. Your questions about research is an important one but a difficult thing to achieve.
I find it really exhausting to be the one arguing this issue over and over again, so I really need to knock off this thread until the issue comes up again elsewhere, I’ll answer a few points first though.
” I don’t dispute that it affects children. I maintain that bringing kids into a union cannot make it a marriage. If it can, then ANY adults who jointly care for children should be able to claim that they are married regardless of their relationship or number.”
I didn’t claim that bringing children into a union “makes it a marriage”. As I’ve said, multiple times that you’re ignoring for some reason, I’d quite like it if we stopped using the word “marriage” legally, because I feel that a better model legally would include non-traditional families and allow them to receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples raising their own biological children. I don’t think what we legally call “marriage” in this country has been what you’re talking about in years, and we need a new model that works better. I believe this will be positive for society. You don’t have to agree, but I’ll fight you all forever for it.
“I do want to ask you how when a social phenomena is only been around a short time would you be able to get such documentation”
People have been raised in same sex households for decades, some people raised by lesbians in particular are adults now. I regret that there hasn’t been a longitudinal study following equal groups of straight couples and gay couples raising children and seeing how it turned out, but I think it should be possible to find evidence from adults who were raised in non-traditional families and children being raised in them now to see what the effects are. Behaviors a hard thing to study, though, and it’s probably going to be hard to figure out (assuming that children in gay households have extra problems) if it’s due to the nature of the parent’s relationships or the way that the family is treated by society at large or both.
I do wonder if you guys really believe that all and every issue in gay families are due to the family structure (which, like I said before, I’m not denying is possible that there are some issues that are due to the structure), and nothing to do with how y’all and other people think of and speak about homosexuality. It’s like with the higher incidence of mental illnesses being found in LGBT people (according to some studies), do you really think that’s all inherent, absolutely nothing to do with growing up knowing that there’s a good portion of people who think there is something seriously wrong with you, being at higher risk for bullying and violence, etc? That’s just my curiosity there.
“As I’ve said, multiple times that you’re ignoring for some reason, I’d quite like it if we stopped using the word “marriage” legally, because I feel that a better model legally would include non-traditional families and allow them to receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples raising their own biological children.”
Well I ignored it because I was originally under the impression that you thought we just wanted to reserve the word and I’m arguing about the societal institution – whatever it’s called. The only institution that benefits society is a traditional [whatever you call it]. It’s the only thing that encourages the best environment for children. There is no benefit (and arguably harm) to encouraging less than ideal structures for children and pretending that they are all equal. They are not.
“I don’t think what we legally call “marriage” in this country has been what you’re talking about in years, and we need a new model that works better. I believe this will be positive for society.”
I agree with that, and the breakdown of the family structure provided by stable marriages has had terrible consequences. However, I see no reason to cement it in a degraded and meaningless state.
“You don’t have to agree, but I’ll fight you all forever for it.”
At least we’re debating on honest terms now.
“Behaviors a hard thing to study, though, and it’s probably going to be hard to figure out (assuming that children in gay households have extra problems) if it’s due to the nature of the parent’s relationships or the way that the family is treated by society at large or both.”
This is why I don’t hang my hat on studies, especially of behavior. Unless the argument is that all caretakers of children regardless of number or relationship can be considered married, then we need to look forward from the union not backward from the children brought to it to determine the appropriate definition of a marital (or whatever) union.