|
United States12607 Posts
On June 28 2010 15:33 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 15:32 JWD wrote:I understand your position quite a bit better now, but I think you need to consider the big-picture ramifications of policy like this. For example, surely SAT score would be a better proxy for childrearing ability. Why not only give marriage-related tax breaks to intelligent couples? You'll find I'd actually be in favor of that as well, if it was done right. I'm consistent, even if I'm rarely popular :>
haha ok I follow now. There is some method to your madness  unrealistic though.
|
Osaka27172 Posts
On June 28 2010 15:32 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 15:32 ghrur wrote:Excuse me for asking, but what happened to taxes in 1066? (sounding dumb ftw? :D) I'm not sure anything major happened in 1975, I just picked a year when economics wasn't even vaguely understood. And 1066 was the first to come to mind >.>
William the Conqueror was kind of a big deal.
|
I meant in reference to taxes.
But I suppose regime change would impact taxes quite a bit, heh.
|
Osaka27172 Posts
On June 28 2010 15:32 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 15:32 ghrur wrote:Excuse me for asking, but what happened to taxes in 1066? (sounding dumb ftw? :D) I'm not sure anything major happened in 1975, I just picked a year when economics wasn't even vaguely understood. And 1066 was the first to come to mind >.>
Also, change your quote please.
|
I took a class in college on Sexuality and Culture, and the professor brought in a panel of gay parents and one of them brought his kid. When asked questions from the student body, it seemed that the kid of the gay parent (now a teen) was completely normal, aside from the fact that she was more open-minded than her counterparts that were raised by straight parents. As a little kid, she knew that she and her sister were being raised in a different environment, but they accepted it because her dads still made them happy, and cared for them and loved them. She said that she was completely straight, but that her sister was lesbian and was very comfortable when coming out.
It seems to me that it's about time that same sex marriage is disallowed, but I also believe same-sex adoption is good thing as well. I've always believed that sexual orientation is very heavily based on biology and much less on social development (a lot of research suggests this as well), and that allowing adoption for same sex couples can only help children who are in need of parents.
|
Don't want to sound like a broken record here, but those are some really well thought-out posts, JWD. Couldn't have said it better, or even have come close to that articulation.
|
United States12607 Posts
That's an interesting story Seraphim. Actually I've never met anyone that (to my knowledge) was raised by a gay couple.
|
On June 28 2010 14:21 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 14:08 RageOverdose wrote:On June 28 2010 13:52 Alou wrote:On June 28 2010 13:49 Djzapz wrote:
Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless. Wanting something completely useless? If I want to marry a man I should be allowed to just as if I wanted to marry a woman. How is having that right recognized useless? How is marriage useful in and of itself, not with what we have put with it officially through the state? Marriage is just really a title. All in all, it serves no purpose, and is really just ceremonial above practical. The idea of gifts and such, in my opinion, should be for the benefit of raising children, not to commemorate someone's love officially, I think that's silly. Although I don't see anything wrong with marriage and I wouldn't stop anyone, to call it useful is really weird. And I mean this in the official, state-sanctioned sense, not any personal sense. If two people want to be recognized for their partnership, by all means. But I'm glad that countries are recognizing same sex marriage. People who don't like it won't actually have their marriages ruined because of it. In my opinion marriage represents an important social purpose. It is a representation of commitment to the community and society in general that you are forming a union with another person. This includes not only the two people getting married but also their respective families and resources. I think this is an important bond that helps keep the fabric of society strong. It is also a commitment to raising a family, and while marriage is not a prerequisite obviously, it is still the most established environment for raising children. Your complaint about gifts has nothing to do with marriage, but rather weddings. That is an entirely separate issue. The state-sanctioned aspect of marriage is simply for tax and organizational purposes, (it saves you a lot of money, so it is useful) and if you are not comfortable with that you can simply have a ceremony and remain common-law, enjoying all the benefits of an officially married couple (at least in Canada). And finally, I don't care who marries who. If two dudes want to get married, it doesn't affect me whatsoever. If they want to adopt... well that is a different story.
I don't dislike marriage, I hope you aren't getting that impression. I actually hope to be married one day. And your description of what marriage should be I agree with. Unfortunately, marriage doesn't really tend to be that way sometimes, in my opinion. I feel many people marry for a reason that is not really beneficial to society. Some people get married, I think, without the intent of really raising children. I think it's the idea/plan of raising that really contribute to those societal ties, not so much the couple themselves. Because, what is a couple with no children to society? I mean, I guess I'm not seeing it. But the thing is, I see marriage as something pertaining to raising kids, so we really aren't disagreeing I think.
Although I never really saw it as a union of two families, which is a missed observation, to be sure.
And I'm not disagreeing to the usefulness of the state-sanctioned aspects of marriage, that's why I mentioned that I'm talking about marriage in and of itself. And I always contributed gifts and such to the marriage, although that was definitely faulty on my part, because yeah, that's more of a ceremonial thing at the wedding, if it happens. And I wasn't complaining, I can't even see how I was implying any complaint.
I'm not bitter or annoyed at the idea of marriage without intent of raising family, my personal opinion is just that I wouldn't do it if I weren't going to have children.
|
On June 28 2010 15:34 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 15:20 ghrur wrote:On June 28 2010 15:13 Djzapz wrote:On June 28 2010 15:10 ghrur wrote:On June 28 2010 15:06 Djzapz wrote:On June 28 2010 15:04 ghrur wrote:On June 28 2010 14:58 Djzapz wrote:On June 28 2010 14:57 ghrur wrote:On June 28 2010 14:38 darmousseh wrote:
In the past the government was not even involved in the question of marriage. It was only recently at least in the united states that states started issuing licences to get married and placing terms of restrictions on those licences. In terms of application, marriage is simply a property contract granting shared property. For some it means a lot of other things, but the government has no right to dictate to terms, conditions, or rules concerning marriage. The best solution is to remove the word marriage from all legislation. In any places where someone gets tax breaks or benefits, change it to households. There is no reason why the government should dictate the terms of my marriage at all.
Why this is the best solution.
1. Allows people to define marriage however they want.
2. Allows businesses to define marriage however they want.
3. Allows churches to define marriage however they want and discriminate if they so choose.
Done
I'm sorry, but too bad. Marriage is, and has been, a government institution since the beginning of our government (Well, past the articles of confederation cuz Idk about that, lol). It is stated in the constitution that government has control over laws regarding marriage. Therefore, they have the right to make laws regarding marriage. Also, changing every single piece of legislation from marriage to households would be EXTREMELY annoying and difficult. To do so would require the US to pass another constitutional amendment. Yeah, have fun doing that. >_> Just because it's borderline un-doable doesn't change the fact that it would be better. Unfortunately the constitution is far from perfect. Well, see, that's just the thing though. It is unrealistic to change the constitution for such a minor issue. I mean, we could simply have marriage have multiple definitions between people of different professions (like we have with countless words). Equal rights is an huge issue. HUGE issue. I'm sorry. I feel like I phrased what I'm expressing poorly. What I mean is this: Changing the constitution just to satisfy the condition that all laws regarding marriage change the use of the word marriage to household is a minor issue that would be an inconvenient thing to implement. I am in no ways saying that the civil rights issue of gay marriage is a minor issue. I personally do believe that the government shouldn't put its nose in marriages and stuff. "It's in the constitution so we're screwed" is something we'll have to accept until people start thinking properly. Conversely, I believe they should because marriage is helpful in creating productive citizens (given all the sociological data about children of married couples to single parents, etc etc). As such, the government promoting it through giving it financial benefits compared to single people is beneficial to our society. On the other hand, I don't believe households really differentiates between a married couple and a single person. =/ I don't believe that marriage is helpful in creating productive citizen. Look at Japan, those people are EXTREMELY career oriented and they don't get married as much as we do. Their productivity is by far higher than ours. And financially helping couples is almost certainly good idea so I would say why not just make "couples" do some paperwork to get whatever tax cuts based on whatever criteria. They need to live together - it's based on their income, the amount of kids, whatever. So you can have your marriage ceremony completely separate from whatever ties you have with your government.
But see, there are more things that affect the productivity gap than simply "we have more marriages than them." There are cultural differences in the attitude toward education and what not. Idk, but I'm guessing Mani can speak about that much better than I can, lol. Also, Japan has a lower divorce rate :p. Maybe more stable families are helping their child development?
And I honestly can't say about financially helping all couples. I have never thought about that, hahaha. Currently, I'm thinking Hollywood couples would make that kind of moot, but so does marriage. Idk, what makes them count as a couple? What is the criteria? How does it stop? etc.
On the last point, you can keep marriage ceremonies separate anyway. That's why there are all sorts of marriage ceremonies which all provide the couple with the same benefits under the law. It's not completely separate, but the ceremony has no relation to the benefits you receive by getting a marriage license aside from the fact that both uses "marriage."
|
Osaka27172 Posts
On June 28 2010 15:25 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 15:09 Manifesto7 wrote:On June 28 2010 14:50 JWD wrote:On June 28 2010 14:48 Manifesto7 wrote:On June 28 2010 14:37 GogoKodo wrote:On June 28 2010 14:21 Manifesto7 wrote:On June 28 2010 14:08 RageOverdose wrote:On June 28 2010 13:52 Alou wrote:On June 28 2010 13:49 Djzapz wrote:
Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless. Wanting something completely useless? If I want to marry a man I should be allowed to just as if I wanted to marry a woman. How is having that right recognized useless? How is marriage useful in and of itself, not with what we have put with it officially through the state? Marriage is just really a title. All in all, it serves no purpose, and is really just ceremonial above practical. The idea of gifts and such, in my opinion, should be for the benefit of raising children, not to commemorate someone's love officially, I think that's silly. Although I don't see anything wrong with marriage and I wouldn't stop anyone, to call it useful is really weird. And I mean this in the official, state-sanctioned sense, not any personal sense. If two people want to be recognized for their partnership, by all means. But I'm glad that countries are recognizing same sex marriage. People who don't like it won't actually have their marriages ruined because of it. In my opinion marriage represents an important social purpose. It is a representation of commitment to the community and society in general that you are forming a union with another person. This includes not only the two people getting married but also their respective families and resources. I think this is an important bond that helps keep the fabric of society strong. It is also a commitment to raising a family, and while marriage is not a prerequisite obviously, it is still the most established environment for raising children. Your complaint about gifts has nothing to do with marriage, but rather weddings. That is an entirely separate issue. The state-sanctioned aspect of marriage is simply for tax and organizational purposes, (it saves you a lot of money, so it is useful) and if you are not comfortable with that you can simply have a ceremony and remain common-law, enjoying all the benefits of an officially married couple (at least in Canada). And finally, I don't care who marries who. If two dudes want to get married, it doesn't affect me whatsoever. If they want to adopt... well that is a different story. Good right up until the end I think. Why would two dudes (or two women) adopting a child affect you in any way? It doesn't affect me, I have a feeling it affects the children. I am not sure I am comfortable with children being raised in the environment. This isn't something I am willing to march for, and I know that a good or bad environment exists in individual situations regardless of parental makeup, but I am not sure how to reconcile a homosexual relationship with parental upbringing. Because I cannot reconcile that dichotomy, I am not comfortable with the situation. Children brought up by same-sex couples would have slightly different childhoods to be sure. But the empirical evidence is that gays are not inferior parents. And when you consider how many children there are living in shitholes with abusive parents, or in foster homes and orphanages waiting for adoption, it seems a travesty to prevent a significant population of willing, able parents from raising kids. I never said or implied inferior. I also think the "how many children there are living in shitholes with abusive parents" will exist regardless of heterosexual or homosexual orientation, although obviously it is easier to create a poor environment in a heterosexual environment as having children can be unintentional. To me it seems that gay parents in the media are usually painted as either the devil or the best parents in the world, when the reality is probably somewhere in between. I also think the reality of the empirical evidence is unrealistic now until adoption becomes more mainstream and can be studied from a greater segment of the population. Again, this is just a feeling I have as a parent. I don't know how to reconcile the maternal or paternal instincts in people who are not heterosexual. I guess I need to have more exposure to that kind of environment to better understand it. edit - Good point, and the race analogy is spot on. You could take the Supreme Court case that struck down interracial marriage bans, change all instances of "race" to "sexual orientation," and publish it as the opinion making marriage a Constitutional right for homo and heterosexuals. It'd read perfectly. I don't think the race analogy is spot on at all. A person's race does not affect behaviour while a person's sexual orientation does. And while homosexuality certainly does influence behavior, you could make a strong argument that race does as well (isn't racism just race influencing behavior, for example?). But more importantly, on the issue of childrearing at least, homosexuality might certainly influence behavior (parenting) but we have to ask ourselves how? Without some proof that the influence is a negative one, it can't concern us as would-be policymakers. My point is: just as we should allow couples of all race combinations to raise children because, amongst other reasons, parents' race does not negatively influence childrearing, we should allow couples of all sexual orientations to raise children because, amongst other reasons, parents' sexual orientation does not negatively influence childrearing. That's the sense in which the race analogy is spot on.
I am not out to deprive people of rights, so from a policy point of view gay couples can adopt children.
That being said, race has no bearing on behaviour. Culture and society does, and they react to race, but you can take a child of any race, put them in any other society at birth, and they will adopt the behaviours and language of the society they are raised in flawlessly and without fail. An African taken at birth to live in Japan will not retain any African behavioural traits.
However, as a parent, I cannot understand the paternal or maternal needs of a homosexual. Because I cannot understand that, I am at odds on how to deal with this issue. This is the difference between race and orientation that I think you are linking too closely, and where I see the difference.
|
Mani, before I can attempt to input my opinion, can you clarify what you mean by ''paternal or maternal needs of a homosexual"?
|
I'm not sure how you have a difficult time understanding why homosexuals wouldn't have the wantings to care for a child. Humans have been adopting children from completely outside of their blood and making it work for thousands of years. Even animals adopt - even homosexual animals; and animals also adopt young beings that are outside of their species, not unlike how we humans have endearing relationships with pets.
If one can understand why and how people would adopt children that have no blood relation to them, then I don't understand why they wouldn't be able to understand the same for homosexuals.
|
Osaka27172 Posts
On June 28 2010 15:45 RageOverdose wrote:
I don't dislike marriage, I hope you aren't getting that impression. I actually hope to be married one day. And your description of what marriage should be I agree with. Unfortunately, marriage doesn't really tend to be that way sometimes, in my opinion. I feel many people marry for a reason that is not really beneficial to society. Some people get married, I think, without the intent of really raising children. I think it's the idea/plan of raising that really contribute to those societal ties, not so much the couple themselves. Because, what is a couple with no children to society? I mean, I guess I'm not seeing it. But the thing is, I see marriage as something pertaining to raising kids, so we really aren't disagreeing I think.
I don't think we are disagreeing either. But a couple of people who marry and do not have kids still support each other in their old age. I think there is benefit to that.
Although I never really saw it as a union of two families, which is a missed observation, to be sure.
Nobody lives in a vacuum.
I'm not bitter or annoyed at the idea of marriage without intent of raising family, my personal opinion is just that I wouldn't do it if I weren't going to have children.
Might be nice to have someone to play cribbage with when you get old 
|
Where did you find this marriage clause in the constitution i would like to know?
There is a simple way of changing the law, the supreme court says "marriage has too many different meanings to be defined by the US government therefore it cannot be legislated and therefore all laws regarding marriage are not valid in that respect".
|
Osaka27172 Posts
On June 28 2010 15:52 koreasilver wrote:
I'm not sure how you have a difficult time understanding why homosexuals wouldn't have the wantings to care for a child. Humans have been adopting children from completely outside of their blood and making it work for thousands of years. Even animals adopt - even homosexual animals; and animals also adopt young beings that are outside of their species, not unlike how we humans have endearing relationships with pets.
If one can understand why and how people would adopt children that have no blood relation to them, then I don't understand why they wouldn't be able to understand the same for homosexuals.
I don't see the connection between "children who are not blood" and homosexuality. Those seem like two completely different issues to me.
Obviously there are homosexuals who want to be parents, otherwise this would be a moot issue. I am not denying it exists, and I am not out to prevent anyone from it. I think a loving home is the most important thing, and if someone can create that loving home with a homosexual partner, then all the power to them.
What I can't reconcile is that people would want to have children and nurture them, but not want to (or be able to) exist in a relationship were children are the result of that relationship. Is it just nature's cruel joke to make gay people, give them the same paternal urges as straight people, then point and laugh? That seems pretty unfortunate.
|
On June 28 2010 15:47 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 15:25 JWD wrote:On June 28 2010 15:09 Manifesto7 wrote:On June 28 2010 14:50 JWD wrote:On June 28 2010 14:48 Manifesto7 wrote:On June 28 2010 14:37 GogoKodo wrote:On June 28 2010 14:21 Manifesto7 wrote:On June 28 2010 14:08 RageOverdose wrote:On June 28 2010 13:52 Alou wrote:On June 28 2010 13:49 Djzapz wrote:
Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless. Wanting something completely useless? If I want to marry a man I should be allowed to just as if I wanted to marry a woman. How is having that right recognized useless? How is marriage useful in and of itself, not with what we have put with it officially through the state? Marriage is just really a title. All in all, it serves no purpose, and is really just ceremonial above practical. The idea of gifts and such, in my opinion, should be for the benefit of raising children, not to commemorate someone's love officially, I think that's silly. Although I don't see anything wrong with marriage and I wouldn't stop anyone, to call it useful is really weird. And I mean this in the official, state-sanctioned sense, not any personal sense. If two people want to be recognized for their partnership, by all means. But I'm glad that countries are recognizing same sex marriage. People who don't like it won't actually have their marriages ruined because of it. In my opinion marriage represents an important social purpose. It is a representation of commitment to the community and society in general that you are forming a union with another person. This includes not only the two people getting married but also their respective families and resources. I think this is an important bond that helps keep the fabric of society strong. It is also a commitment to raising a family, and while marriage is not a prerequisite obviously, it is still the most established environment for raising children. Your complaint about gifts has nothing to do with marriage, but rather weddings. That is an entirely separate issue. The state-sanctioned aspect of marriage is simply for tax and organizational purposes, (it saves you a lot of money, so it is useful) and if you are not comfortable with that you can simply have a ceremony and remain common-law, enjoying all the benefits of an officially married couple (at least in Canada). And finally, I don't care who marries who. If two dudes want to get married, it doesn't affect me whatsoever. If they want to adopt... well that is a different story. Good right up until the end I think. Why would two dudes (or two women) adopting a child affect you in any way? It doesn't affect me, I have a feeling it affects the children. I am not sure I am comfortable with children being raised in the environment. This isn't something I am willing to march for, and I know that a good or bad environment exists in individual situations regardless of parental makeup, but I am not sure how to reconcile a homosexual relationship with parental upbringing. Because I cannot reconcile that dichotomy, I am not comfortable with the situation. Children brought up by same-sex couples would have slightly different childhoods to be sure. But the empirical evidence is that gays are not inferior parents. And when you consider how many children there are living in shitholes with abusive parents, or in foster homes and orphanages waiting for adoption, it seems a travesty to prevent a significant population of willing, able parents from raising kids. I never said or implied inferior. I also think the "how many children there are living in shitholes with abusive parents" will exist regardless of heterosexual or homosexual orientation, although obviously it is easier to create a poor environment in a heterosexual environment as having children can be unintentional. To me it seems that gay parents in the media are usually painted as either the devil or the best parents in the world, when the reality is probably somewhere in between. I also think the reality of the empirical evidence is unrealistic now until adoption becomes more mainstream and can be studied from a greater segment of the population. Again, this is just a feeling I have as a parent. I don't know how to reconcile the maternal or paternal instincts in people who are not heterosexual. I guess I need to have more exposure to that kind of environment to better understand it. edit - Good point, and the race analogy is spot on. You could take the Supreme Court case that struck down interracial marriage bans, change all instances of "race" to "sexual orientation," and publish it as the opinion making marriage a Constitutional right for homo and heterosexuals. It'd read perfectly. I don't think the race analogy is spot on at all. A person's race does not affect behaviour while a person's sexual orientation does. And while homosexuality certainly does influence behavior, you could make a strong argument that race does as well (isn't racism just race influencing behavior, for example?). But more importantly, on the issue of childrearing at least, homosexuality might certainly influence behavior (parenting) but we have to ask ourselves how? Without some proof that the influence is a negative one, it can't concern us as would-be policymakers. My point is: just as we should allow couples of all race combinations to raise children because, amongst other reasons, parents' race does not negatively influence childrearing, we should allow couples of all sexual orientations to raise children because, amongst other reasons, parents' sexual orientation does not negatively influence childrearing. That's the sense in which the race analogy is spot on. I am not out to deprive people of rights, so from a policy point of view gay couples can adopt children. That being said, race has no bearing on behaviour. Culture and society does, and they react to race, but you can take a child of any race, put them in any other society at birth, and they will adopt the behaviours and language of the society they are raised in flawlessly and without fail. An African taken at birth to live in Japan will not retain any African behavioural traits. However, as a parent, I cannot understand the paternal or maternal needs of a homosexual. Because I cannot understand that, I am at odds on how to deal with this issue. This is the difference between race and orientation that I think you are linking too closely, and where I see the difference.
I'm not really sure what behavioral differences you might be talking about. The only thing I can think of is that gay men are sexually attracted to men, and thus their different behavior would include same sex intercourse. Same deal for women.
I'm not sure why a sexual attraction would have any bearing on maternal/paternal needs/feelings. It would be like puzzling over whether or not the shoe fetishist across the street truly feels the same way about parenting as I do.
Gay people come in all shapes, sizes, degrees of bisexuality, colors, personalities, etc, just like any straight person. If a gay person says, I want to raise an adopted (or otherwise) child because I want to be a parent, it means the exact same thing as when a straight person says it.
edit: I see your post above. You've got it about right I think. There are gay people that want to have children that cannot do so on their own, sucks, but that's how it is. Also, these discussions never seem to mention couples that actually do have children through forms other than adoption. Either through medical procedures or naturally with the help of a willing surrogate or sperm donor. So in those cases generally 1 parent would be blood related.
|
if you legalize gay marriage then you have to legalize incest
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On June 28 2010 16:14 omninmo wrote:
if you legalize gay marriage then you have to legalize incest
User was temp banned for this post.
Irrefutable logic.
If you legalize weed you have to legalize meth and mass murder.
|
On June 28 2010 16:04 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 15:52 koreasilver wrote:
I'm not sure how you have a difficult time understanding why homosexuals wouldn't have the wantings to care for a child. Humans have been adopting children from completely outside of their blood and making it work for thousands of years. Even animals adopt - even homosexual animals; and animals also adopt young beings that are outside of their species, not unlike how we humans have endearing relationships with pets.
If one can understand why and how people would adopt children that have no blood relation to them, then I don't understand why they wouldn't be able to understand the same for homosexuals. I don't see the connection between "children who are not blood" and homosexuality. Those seem like two completely different issues to me. Obviously there are homosexuals who want to be parents, otherwise this would be a moot issue. I am not denying it exists, and I am not out to prevent anyone from it. I think a loving home is the most important thing, and if someone can create that loving home with a homosexual partner, then all the power to them. What I can't reconcile is that people would want to have children and nurture them, but not want to (or be able to) exist in a relationship were children are the result of that relationship. Is it just nature's cruel joke to make gay people, give them the same paternal urges as straight people, then point and laugh? That seems pretty unfortunate.
I don't understand why the ability to procreate must be such a fundamental part of nurturing a child. There is nothing lesser about raising a child that is not of your blood.
On June 28 2010 16:14 omninmo wrote:
if you legalize gay marriage then you have to legalize incest
User was temp banned for this post.
rofl slippery slope.
|
My nephew was raised by same-sex parents. He's by all accounts a normal kid. Didn't take too long to reconcile the whole two mothers thing, either.
It surely will change his experience subtly in the long run, just like any other kid is influenced by their parent's ideals, but from my limited experience there's nothing that makes him some aberration of society just because he was raised by a same-sex couple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
