- State Rep. Cathy Connolly
In the state-by-state march toward marriage equality, four states have been on the radar for possible legalization of same-sex marriage this year. This week, a fifth state became a new possibility.
According to the Billings Gazette, Wyoming State Rep. Cathy Connolly, D-Laramie, will file two bills. One would legalize same-sex marriage, the other civil unions. Connolly is lesbian.
Wyoming does not have a constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage. Bills have been filed to change that, and Connolly’s bills are in response.
Like Iowa, where same-sex marriage became legal a few years ago, Wyoming does have a history of equality. When Wyoming was admitted to the union in 1890, it became the first to allow women to vote and was the first to elect a woman governor. (That was 1924 and Texas elected a woman — “Ma” Ferguson — that year as well).
In Wyoming’s 60-seat lower house, only 10 of those seats are held by Democrats. In the Senate, only four out of 30 are Democrats.
Four other states that may consider marriage equality this year are New York, Rhode Island, Maryland and Minnesota.
Of those four, Rhode Island and Maryland are the states where it is most likely to pass. Rhode Island’s new governor favors marriage equality and Democrats hold a strong majority in both houses. Their former governor opposed equality although the state already recognizes marriages performed elsewhere.
Maryland has been studying equality for more than a year and a bill is progressing.
New York recognizes marriages performed elsewhere and two courts have upheld that recognition. The state’s new governor, Andrew Cuomo, supports equality, as did their former governor, but the state Senate has a one-vote Republican majority that may block passage.
In his inaugural speech, Cuomo said, “We believe in justice for all, then let’s pass marriage equality this year once and for all.”
Minnesota’s new governor campaigned as an LGBT ally, countering his opponent’s staunch anti-gay bigotry. Support of the Republican is what led to an unorganized Target boycott. The new Democrat has said he supports marriage equality and would like to see a bill pass.
Here in CT where we passed a civil union law in 2005, and a marriage equality law in 2008, hundreds and hundreds of couples are coming here to wed, many of who have been together for many, many years..
Cheers, Joe Mustich, Officiant, Justice of the Peace, Red Studio Farm, Washington, CT USA
Advocates for SSM are not pushing for marriage equality. They are advocating for the separate right to create gender segregated homes (male/male or female/female) as opposed to the existing right to create gender integrated homes (male/female) They want this separate right to be treated on an equal plane with the existing right.
This is nothing more than the discredited segregationist mantra of, “Separate but equal” applied to gender. In fact racial segregationists used the same line of reasoning to defend their policies in the 50’s & 60’s only the American people were smart enough back then to reject such Orwellian twisting of the language. It seems after 1984 many became more like Winston Smith and less like Martin Luther King Jr. I’m betting that the people of Wyoming are more like Dr. King than Winston Smith.
Lolwut? How does one such as yourself even comprehend the use of a computer?
Matt,
That’s it?! No effort to point out the factual errors in the first paragraph or how the judgment of the 2nd paragraph is flawed. Shoot my kids can express better contempt than this without even trying!
How about you demonstrate your brilliance by pointing out the errors or should we pay no attention to the man behind the curtain and focus on your dazzling wit?
Gerry, a little problem with your reasoning I’m noticing, and I hope you find this helpful. Everything you said has nothing to do what-so-ever with the discussion of same-sex marriage. Other than that, I think you make a fantastic point, especially that one point.
I look forward to your reasoned, calm, rational response!
Shawn,
The outcome of SSM isn’t socially approved male/male or female/female homes? Why do you not think that is an outcome? It is called Same Sex marriage after all.
Gerry, same-sex couples already live together, own homes, and raise families. Allowing them to marry is just the next logical step. It doesn’t hurt you at all, it simply grants them equal status as citizens.
Nefreet,
Opposite sex couples already live together, own homes, and raise families as well, The issue isn’t the ability to enter into these kinds of relationships informally. The issue is what kind of formal social institution Society believes best serves it’s interest in promoting the well being of future generations and that institution is heterosexual marriage. It conforms to the highly prized social value of integration of the genders and by doing so insures that children are raised in a home with a mother & a father. You do believe that the mother/child father/child relationship is vital to the well-being of a child don’t you?
Gerry,
You know what you are? You know what you are? You’re a clown.
No, Gerry, I do not, and there is no evidence to back up your claim, either. I’m sorry you feel that there is some huge difference between the sexes. I thought society started getting over that in the 60s. What you have to realize is that gender, as you understand it, is an artificial construct. Men and women are equal on every level. A man is just as good a parent as a woman, and vice versa. The gender of a child’s parents has no influence on their upbringing. A child with two fathers will fair just as well as a child with two parents of the opposite sex and just as well as a child with two mothers.
Psychiatry, psychology, and child development have long pointed out the centrality of the mother/child father/child relationship. This is pysch & child development 101. If you don’t know this you don’t know very much about the social sciences. Take a moment and survey textbooks on child development & psychology that are currently in use.
Men & women are different on every level from genetic to psychological. They are politically and socially equal though. In the 60’s-80’s it was a political notion that men & women were the same but it never was a scientific theme.
If you think the gender of a parent has no influence on the child’s upbringing then I suggest you look at some “absent father” & “absent mother” studies.
Against this vast body of work indicating the importance of the mother/child father/child relationship is a handful of contemporary “studies” whose weaknesses are well known within their respective disciplines. Lack of representative samples, small sample size, complicated comparisons, lack of heterogeneity of subject groups, measurement concerns, lack of statistical controls, & very limited data on children raised by gay fathers.
SSM advocates correctly look with a skeptical eye on “studies” underwritten by Big Oil or Big Tobacco considering them ideologically skewed but swallow whole any study that supports a SSM agenda no matter it’s known flaws.
You can keep drinking the PC kool-aid but for anyone serious about the facts what I wrote is compelling.
I laughed out loud when I read that last post, Gerry. And the all-caps name, too. A little frustrated I called you out on your main point?
I happen to be a social science major. I’ve taken abnormal psych, queer theory, psychology of marriage, and a long list of others. Your arguments are outdated. The vast body of recent research regarding same-sex parents shows children to be as well-adjusted as any from opposite sex parentage.
But we could butt heads on that all night. The evidence is newer, but holds up well against scrutiny. How about you give me some examples of what exactly a father or a mother brings to a family relationship that the other cannot? Is there something a child misses out on by having two mothers? Two fathers? I happen to know a few same-sex parents and their children seem to be just fine.
Steve,
In the clown car called life aren’t we all?
Nefreet.
Then you are aware of the “Expanding Resources” Report by the EVAN B. DONALDSON ADOPTION INSTITUTE. Found here:
https://www.f2f.ca.gov/res/pdf/ExpandingResources.pdf
In particular Appendix “A” which summarizes Research on Gay and Lesbian Parenting and which lays out the weaknesses I summarized in greater detail. I judge the flaws to be significant , you may not, we could butt heads on that all night as you said.
Again “absent father” ‘absent mother” studies have indicated the contributions for quite some time.
For example girls with absent fathers reach puberty younger, become sexually active earlier and are more likely to get pregnant in their teens if their father was absent from the home from when they were young.
For boys with absent fathers they have difficulty developing and sustaining self-esteem, forming lasting emotional attachments, recognizing their feelings, or being expressive.
This has been extensively studied which you know being a social science major.
Common sense tells you that the terms “Mom” & “Dad” are gender specific not gender neutral. With the same sex families you know is one partner referred to as “Mom” and the other as “Dad” Isn’t it “Heather has two mommies”? Why do you think that is?
The all caps was hitting the wrong key and I’m not frustrated at all about your calling me out on my main point since it is very well confirmed by a large body of contemporary work. Again my main point is that the mother/child father/child relationship is vital to a child’s development and NOT The recent research regarding same-sex parents which shows children to be as well-adjusted as any from opposite sex parentage.
PS
Since you are a social science major why don’t you stop by the Child Development Dept and tell them you don’t believe the mother/child father/child relationship is vital to a child’s development. They will be laughing, but it won’t be with you it will be at you.
You are completely misinterpreting the data from those studies. Think outside the socially-constructed box of gender for a second. It’s not an “absent father” that’s harmful, it’s “absent parent”. Two parents are better than one. That is the only thing those studies confirmed.
You poked a hole in your own logic using the “Mom & Dad” reference. Just because the terms are aliases for the different sexes does not mean they are necessary. We indeed should be raising our children in gender-neutral homes as much as we can. To do otherwise, to emphasize one gender’s importance over another, can be harmful and destructive.
I am friends with the first gay couple to ever adopt here in California. Their daughter and son refer to them as “Dad” and “Pappa”. I am friends with a lesbian couple and their kids call them “Mom” and “Mommy”. An opposite-sex couple raised their kids to refer to them by first name, wanting a gender-neutral home, and the kids are fine as well.
When was the last time you consulted anyone in the childcare field? It is not called the mother/child father/child relationship any longer, it’s called the “parent/child” relationship. It’s really no different except the segregation of the sexes is being removed.
Also, did YOU read Appendix A? I don’t see a single harmful statistic there showing that the parentage of same-sex couples is any less beneficial to the upbringing of a child than having opposite-sex parents. Again the data shows that having TWO parents is preferrable to one, regardless of sexual orientation. If anything the data shows that lesbian parents are more affectionate to their kids than heterosexual fathers!
Nefreet,
Denial ill suits a social science major. I understand the University being on the cutting edge of progressive thought will embrace any & all social & political fads including the late 20th century fad of thinking their are no significant differences between men & women, but here in the 21st century the literature says otherwise.
A noted sociologist, Dr. David Popenoe, is one of the pioneers of the relatively young field of research into fathers and fatherhood. “Fathers are far more than just ‘second adults’ in the home,” he says. “Involved fathers bring positive benefits to their children that no other person is as likely to bring.”
I read Appendix A . There is a column of “findings” and a column on “Sample size/ limitations”. My reference to you was on the “limitations” column. Methodology significantly impacts the credibility of the findings. I am surprised that a social science major like you would swallow the findings given the significantly flawed limitations of the studies.
I get the authors are going to toe the PC line and defend findings from flawed studies, I mean if they didn’t where would their funding come from? You are familiar with the way these things work outside the classroom, right? Think “Big Oil” “Big Tobacco” studies. Scientists can be bought and rather cheaply at that.
Name one benefit a man brings to the family that a woman cannot, or vice versa.
How else would you best go about studying the parentage of same-sex couples given societies animosity towards their very existence? You call it “significantly flawed”. I call it the “best we have”. Funny how even limited sample sizes such as these compare to limited sample sizes of single-parent families or paired heterosexual families, isn’t it?
Nefreet,
Easy enough. A father can teach his children by modeling in the home how a man loves a woman & how a man loves his children. Vice versa with a woman. I take it you disagree with Dr. Popenoe’s statement, ““Fathers are far more than just ‘second adults’ in the home,” he says. “Involved fathers bring positive benefits to their children that no other person is as likely to bring.”
Nefreet,
If this represents the quality of your education perhaps you should ask for a refund and use the money to intern in businesses related to social science where as they say, “the rubber meets the road” and not the fanciful yellow brick road of academia either.
No ad hominem attacks necessary. I was enjoying being civil with you. You failed to answer my question, though. Since you are implying a father, a man, is a necessary component in a two-parent household, what exactly does he bring that a woman cannot?
The “expert” you are quoting, although I believe you are using the quote out of context, must have some sort of evidence to back up his claim, yes? A father is no more a “second adult” than a mother being labeled the “first adult”. That is a horrible way to describe anyone. Why does anyone need to be labeled as “first” or “second” to begin with? Aren’t they both just as important?
Your experience and education is obviously tainted with a need for different genders. I assure you those constructs of society are being shed as time goes on. Your example of a man loving a woman (and vice versa) implies a heterosexual bias. What if the child is gay or lesbian? I assure you two same-sex parents can show their children, gay or straight, how to love one another. Gender is certainly not a necessary component of love.
Now don’t get me wrong, I am not discounting the major role an involved father plays in a HETEROSEXUAL union, but it is no more important than the role an involved MOTHER makes in the same union, or two involved same-sex partners in THEIR union. No one parent is automatically a better role model just because of their gender.
Nefreet,
“No ad hominem attacks necessary.” I merely crossed the bridge you crossed first with this remark, “I laughed out loud when I read that last post, Gerry. And the all-caps name, too.” You want to move forward with a more civil dialog it cuts both ways please don’t forget that. On to the issues.
You keep making a value judgment that different means better, men & women are different that doesn’t make one better than the other. That is the political and social lesson of the last 5 decades and one I agree with completely.
Gender has an objective biological origin, there are males and females. Our labels for that objective biological state are socially & personally derived and those labels have and can change to a limited degree. In the end though we are not changing the underlying objective state we are simply changing our symbolic descriptions of that state. In semantics there is a saying, “the map is not the territory.” The symbol is not the object..
When we change the symbols so that they no longer have a connection with the reality they represent we create for ourselves a delusional perceptual state. We have fallen down the proverbial rabbit hole into Wonderland when it comes to acknowledging the biological origin of gender. You wrote: “Your experience and education is obviously tainted with a need for different genders. I assure you those constructs of society are being shed as time goes on.” The facility of sight is as biological in origin as sex and as long as it remains the labels like; red, yellow, blue, etc will remain. It is only when the facility of sight is removed that those labels are shed, for the blind have no need of them.
Males, females, boys, girls, men, women, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers all these labels exist because the objective reality they represent exists. You can erase a canyon from a map but when you walk the territory the map represents you should watch your step lest you fall into the canyon you denied existed.
The link between the symbol and the object is so strong in cognitive thought that it is the reason the LGBT community still uses gender specific rather than gender neutral words in family life and does not make them interchangeable. Being a “dad” means something different (not better) than being a “mom” and vice versa.
Let’s start with an education on what an ad hominem actually is. It is one of many logical fallacies of argument I have noticed you try to slip into your comments. You belittling my education is a personal attack on my character. Me laughing because you made an erroneous statement about my knowledge of the social sciences is not.
You are the one that has been saying this whole time that different is better, not I. You keep claiming fathers have some role that mothers cannot achieve. I have simply been asking for you to provide any evidence of such. I have not seen anything compelling from either you or the rest of the anti-gay crowd. You’d think that would be the first line of argument, showing the facts that support your cause, but I see now you have none. I’ve given you plenty of opportunities. Don’t forget that on these public forums you’re not trying to just convince me, but the myriad of other people reading these comments.
Instead of providing your own case studies you undermine the relevence of observations done on the small sample sizes we have. That’s not how you win a debate. If there is such clear overwhelming evidence that opposite-sex parentage is superior to same-sex parentage, WHERE IS IT? Please feel free to provide links, studies, organizations, anything. There are plenty out there to support my side, do you have even one for yours?
Gerry,
Ive got a couple things I wanted to touch on, if you will permit me a few minutes of your time.
***They are advocating for the separate right to create gender segregated homes… They want this separate right to be treated on an equal plane with the existing right….This is nothing more than the discredited segregationist mantra of, “Separate but equal”***
Soooo….You’re suggesting that in order to keep marriages non-segregated, we should “segregate” the gays from the heteros as it relates to marriage? What right are you preserving from decay with that reasoning?
***The outcome of SSM isn’t socially approved male/male or female/female homes?***
Actually no, at least that isn’t the objective. Same-sex relationships/households are already socially accepted. Unless you’re part of some campaign to delete gays from existence all together…
(Continued..)
***The issue is what kind of formal social institution Society believes best serves it’s interest in promoting the well being of future generations and that institution is heterosexual marriage. It conforms to the highly prized social value of integration of the genders and by doing so insures that children are raised in a home with a mother & a father.***
This is an excellent argument for heterosexual marriage, but I don’t understand how marriage equality will detriment any hetero marriages in concept or in practice. If a hetro family fails to secure future generations because of a gay marriage, then ALL hetero families will fail because of gay marriage, using your logic. This is certainly not the case. Please help me to understand.
Nefreet,
A man and a woman are juggling pins. When an observer looks at the two jugglers what does she perceive? A man juggling pins and a woman juggling pins. If she wondered if men juggle pins seeing two women juggling pins wouldn’t answer her question.
Living in a gender integrated home children experience men & women living as husbands & wives, mothers & fathers, men & women. they experience gender modeling and get basic questions answered through experience about what it means to be a man or woman, husband or wife, mother or father. Same gender households can’t provide this foundational modeling, do you really need a study to tell you that?
Which comes first in human development sexual identity or sexual orientation? Identity, right? You have to have the compass points to know what your orientation is. In a gender segregated home one of the two compass points is missing and because it is missing modeling about what it means to be a husband or father or wife or mother is missing and even if Aunt Sally or Uncle Bob step in to help that critical modeling isn’t there. Aunt Sally can teach what it means to be an Aunt but she can’t teach what it means to be the child’s mother or the wife of the child’s father. Same holds true for Uncle Bob. Do you need a study to tell you this? There are plenty of studies out there that talk about the effects of absent fathers and absent children google them. (it is the 21st century after all)
I’d put links but if you put links the site may think you are spamming and erase the entry.
I’m repeating myself here from earlier and the reason is because you have simply overlooked a crucial point and are reluctant to admit it. Your position isn’t wrong because it is incorrect it is wrong because it is incomplete and that is a much tougher thing to deal with because “you just don’t see it.”
HandyBrandon,
It is a simple matter of facts. Does SSM lead to socially approved (licensed) gender segregated (male/male or female/female) homes? Does conjugal marriage lead to socially approved (licensed) gender integrated (male/female) homes? Yes or No? Is that an outcome of SSM irrespective of intentions, motives, or orientation?
As Nefreet and I have been discussing my position is a gender segregated home burdens children in that it deprives them of either a mother or a father.
Both gays & straights have the right (license) to form gender integrated homes and neither have the right (license) to form gender segregated homes. In providing a marriage license the State (sensibly) only requires the two gender forms (male/female) be present. The State asks no questions about orientation, motive, sexual practices, or future plans to have kids or not. A gay man & woman could loudly proclaim they are gay and a clerk would still give them a license to marry each other because they meet the State’s requirement that the two gender forms be present.
We understand this when it comes to race. The social principle we are following in regards to race & gender is integration not segregation. We license and institutionalize social conduct that follows the principle of integration. Segregationists once held that because a part of society wants to use their right of association to integrated they should have the equal ability to use their right of association to segregate after all, they argued, the desire to associate with ones own kind is natural and god given. For decades they had that right in a “live & let live” arraignment between the North & the South. Segregation never harmed whites just as SSM never harms adults. When the larger society started to listen to the voices of the group that was harmed, blacks things changed. When we start to listen to the voices of the group most burdened by SSM, children, we will insist that marriage remain what it has always been, an institution that promotes gender integration.
***In providing a marriage license the State (sensibly) only requires the two gender forms (male/female) be present.***
To what get? What sense does it make for the state to ban marital segregation by segregating gays from heteros? To suggest that the state bans one form of segregation only to adopt another is a red herring.
***When we start to listen to the voices of the group most burdened by SSM, children, we will insist that marriage remain what it has always been, an institution that promotes gender integration.**
If society’s objective were to keep children from the ‘burden’ of being absent one gender or another as it relates to their parents, then being unwed while conceiving would be illegal, divorce would be illegal, and single parent conceptions/adoptions would be illegal, among other circumstances. With a heterosexual divorce rate around 50%, you would be hard pressed to suggest that children would fair better lacking one parent than they would having two parents of the same gender. Whatever reasons you come up with to ban gay marriage in the interest of protecting children has to be applied to straight people as well. Otherwise, you’re showing your homophobic bias.
Gerry, you have to leave the issue of children out of this entire debate. It’s a nice distraction from the real argument, really it is, it works for most people, but procreation is not a requirement of marriage. End of story. If you are so hard up on children needing a mother and a father, make that case, but leave marriage out of it. As HandymanBrandon stated your arguments are very compelling to outlaw single parents from raising children. I would say they are equally valid at outlawing divorce.
You told me to do a “Google search” of studies that suggest same-sex parentage is harmful to children. The problem is there AREN’T ANY. It’s not an issue of scientists being bought, it’s not an issue of the facts being skewed, there simply aren’t any studies that confirm your arguments. Every major medical or psychological organization agrees that gays and lesbians should be granted the ability to marry, and that raising children is perfectly acceptable as well. If you do not wish to provide any more links, which you already did once, to your detriment, then can you name even one organization that supports your argument?
Although after thinking about it some more, I suppose you fully support gender integrated restrooms, co-ed locker rooms, and discontinuing all-boy private schools, too, right?
HB,
The State only requires the two gender forms be present because that is all there is. As I wrote earlier the State has no concern about orientation. None. No application or clerk asks about orientation.Isn’t that correct?
Gender is immutable. Is Orientation ? If sexual orientation is immutable is racial orientation immutable as well? Segregationist thought it was, it was one of their main arguments. They believed the abolishment of Jim Crow laws was an attempt by the North to isolate and deprive those who believed it was natural to associate with their own kind of their Constitutional rights. Were the Segregationists right? To end one form of segregation the State imposed another form on segregationists?
You wrote: “If society’s objective were to keep children from the ‘burden’ of being absent one gender or another as it relates to their parents, then being unwed while conceiving would be illegal, divorce would be illegal, and single parent conceptions/adoptions would be illegal”
How do you propose the State do that? Would you want to live in such a State? I thought it was a good thing to get the State out of our bedrooms?
These are tough issues and the solutions we have are simply not trying to make a bad situation worse. You really think the State can force people to stay together?! You don’t do you? These are red herring issues aren’t they?
As to divorce, once gays are married do any of them divorce? Won’t they have to deal with the same issues as straights, using the same legal remedies?
Answer these questions please Like I answer yours. “Does SSM lead to socially approved (licensed) gender segregated (male/male or female/female) homes? Does conjugal marriage lead to socially approved (licensed) gender integrated (male/female) homes? Yes or No? Is that an outcome of SSM irrespective of intentions, motives, or orientation?”
*sigh*
Gerry, I suggest you either take a class on argumentation or research logical fallacies. You have not shown through your examples here that you know what either an ad hominem attack is or the definition of a red herring. I’ve already explained the former, the latter refers to using a different argument to divert the opponent’s attention from the current topic and using it to mislead him or her to different conclusions.
HandymanBrandon is using a comparative analogy to show that your logic is flawed. Even the federal judges presiding over the current Prop8 trial in California agree that your arguments are better situated in favor of disallowing divorce. That’s what you are arguing. HandymanBrandon is simply pointing that out to you. I hope you understand the comparison. He is not advocating banning divorce or single parentage, but you are with your logic.
And I believe I’ve already answered the questions you posed again to him. Allowing SSM does NOT promote what you call “gender segregated” homes. These relationships ALREADY EXIST. The state has NO RATIONAL BASIS in favor of restricting civil marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Were interracial relationships socially acceptable 50 years ago? Don’t you think, with the nation’s growing acceptance of gays and lesbians, that 50 years from now this will be a moot argument?
Nefreet,
The Marriage license is the way the State using “soft” persuasion directs procreative conduct into socially beneficial expressions. Straights aren’t going to separate children from marriage anymore than those with a drivers license are going to give up their cars. Marriage no more requires children than a drivers license requires a car but while not structurally connected they are functionally connected. Here’s how.
When a woman gives birth we now who the mother of that child is through marriage we also know who the father is as well, her husband. Marriage is a social institution that establishes paternity.
As to restrooms & locker rooms. The genders are physiologically different and we make some accommodations for those differences, that’s just common sense. Is being gay a third gender? Are there physiological differences between gays & straights? News to me if there are.
Gerry,I suspect you might be confused as to the meanings of segregated vs separated.
Segregated is defined as: “to require, often with force, the separation of (a specific racial, religious, or other group) from the general body of society.”
Separate: “To distinguish: mark as different; divide: separate into parts or portions; divide into components or constituents; classify: arrange or order by classes or categories; Essentially, one is forced, the other is not.
Now if we focus in on the individual relationships, indeed there are SEPARATIONS in each marriage. A man might ‘separate’ a fat woman from other women in keeping with his penchant for fat ladies. One might separate the dark haired ladies from the blonds, if one were so attracted to brunettes. You have the option of marrying skinny women, or blond ladies, but you choose to separate those you are attracted to from those you are not.
Separation (distinction) is not a bad thing in this case. Thats what gives you the freedom to marry who you are attracted to. The ‘segregation’ you keep referring to on the individual relationship level is only the SEPARATION or distinction of the genders, not “segregation.” Gays only wish to separate men from women as per their attraction, just as straight people do with their likenesses. There would be no required or forced segregation, as you describe it. The state has no reason to segregate gays from heteros in regards to marriage, because gay marriage will not damage society.
Thank you for your responses, by the way.
Forgive me, I misused the word “likenesses.” I meant to write liking.
Also…***The Marriage license is the way the State using “soft” persuasion directs procreative conduct into socially beneficial expressions.***
Is this why murderers and rapists and child molesters still retain the right to marry? I daresay that this is NOT what the states motivation is. The State has no interest in marriage at all; it is the people who have an interest in the state recognizing their relationships.
***How do you propose the State do that? Would you want to live in such a State? I thought it was a good thing to get the State out of our bedrooms?***
I dont propose this at all, but if society wanted it regulated, then the state would regulate it. The imposition of fines or taxes would be the logical route in enforcing it if that were the case, but we digress.
And as to your questions-
***“Does SSM lead to socially approved (licensed) gender segregated (male/male or female/female) homes?**
No, only licensed gender-SEPARATED homes.
***Does conjugal marriage lead to socially approved (licensed) gender integrated (male/female) homes?***
You mean straight relationships? Yes, but not by force, only by choice. The straight people chose to integrate their relationship of their own volition. (Do not confuse the choice being who they are attracted to) Regardless of the party’s marital choices in the matter, no new relationships (integrated or separated) will come as a result of legalizing gay marriage. It only determines what they state deems beneficial to society. Gay marriage meets that requirement.
Last one for this round, I promise.
I should also clarify; “It only determines what they state deems beneficial to society.” This is in regards to marriage being a constitutional right, as rights are beneficial for society. Thats why rapists, et al can still get married. I didnt mean to suggest that the state has an interest in marriage, as touched on earlier.
~ “The Marriage license is the way the State using “soft” persuasion directs procreative conduct into socially beneficial expressions.”
Hardly. What part of “raising children is not a requirement of marriage” do you not understand? When two people past childbearing age come together and get married, does the state refuse them a license simply because they are too old? When two sterile people enter into the same union, does the state acknowledge they cannot procreate?
~ “Marriage no more requires children than a drivers license requires a car but while not structurally connected they are functionally connected.”
I don’t care. That’s not what matters for this argument. You can marry someone and not have children, and you can have children and not get married. Your arguments concerning child-bearing and procreation have no bearing on the issue of allowing same-sex marriage. None. What-so-ever. Thank you for your time.
Next?
Nefreet,
Thank you for your dismissal, I can go my merry way now that you have vanquished me? Conversation didn’t quite go the way you thought it would? I get this a lot We are all prisoners of our perceptual framework The key to freedom is to know the door is locked from the inside.
Thank you for your time.
Gerry is an idiot stuck in the dark ages. Enough said
HB,
I use the word segregate with it’s first stated meaning: “to separate or set apart from others or from the general mass.” SSM leads to (male/male or female/female) households and that is the outcome of SSM irrespective of intentions, motives, or orientation.
Such an outcome deprives children of either their father or their mother, yes? Male/male= no female (mother). Female/female= no male (father).
Is the mother/child father/child relationship vital to the development of a child?
Ronald,
Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful contribution. It is folks like you who will carry the banner forward to victory through such persuasive reasoning. I am glad your time in college wasn’t wasted.
~ ” We are all prisoners of our perceptual framework”
I cannot think of anyone who is a better example of this than you. You’re trapped in a mindset that “gender”, a completely social CONSTRUCT, is necessary for one to function. It is not. Gender perceptions change from culture to culture, era to era. What was considered “masculine” at one time may switch to being “feminine” the next or become unisex. Several people have answered your questions over and over again yet you keep asking them. You have shown that you are unable to advance an argument past the same recording.
~ “SSM leads to (male/male or female/female) households”
NO IT DOES NOT. These unions already exist.
~ “Is the mother/child father/child relationship vital to the development of a child?”
Absolutely not. A close personal relationship, regardless of the sex of the parent, is what is vital. This was one of the first questions of yours I answered, but I have the feeling that going forward, you’re going to keep asking it. Very sad indeed.
~ “Thank you for your dismissal”
I’m not done with you, yet. I simply tire of hearing the same message. It is you that is looking the fool to the readers of this column. Surely you have other evidence to support your argument besides “gender segregation”, yes?
Ignore Gerry. I cannot take people who do not know the difference between “there”, “their”, and “they’re” seriously.
I usually like to partake in debates like this on public forums not because I think I’ll change the minds of the people I’m debating with, but because their irrational rants expose their hypocrisy and flawed logic to people that are better capable of making informed decisions. The more homophobes out there that try to argue like Gerry, the sooner we’ll see same-sex marriage legalized. And the best part is they’ll keep doing what they’re doing.
Nefreet,
You are the perfect picture of Irony.
Of course same sex relationships exist the issue is does society license those relationships like it licenses opposite sex relationships through marriage? I have stated this a number of times and still you overlook it.
As to Gender being a completely social CONSTRUCT of course it is as a map is a completely social CONSTRUCT of the territory it represents. If you want to wander alone in the unknown then, “maps, we don’t need no stinkin maps!” (with apologizes to Mel Brooks) But if you have a destination in mind and want others to get there a map is a very valuable tool. Did you even read my 1/14 @ 225pm post?
Gender is a social construct, a symbol, but cognitive thought is built on symbols as Piaget pointed out long ago. Gender is an objective reality and most societies seek to accurately map that reality out and in doing so inadvertently place some cultural overlays into the map, it happens but it is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you have an inaccurate map the best thing to do is improve it not burn it.
I too like to partake in debates like this on public forums not because I think I’ll change the minds of the people I’m debating with, but because their irrational rants expose their hypocrisy and flawed logic to people that are better capable of making informed decisions.
You have admirably satisfied that goal in two areas. One, rather than directly address a statement of fact (SSM leads to socially licensed male/male or female/female homes) you “spin” it by splitting hairs. Two, you reject the idea that the mother/child father/child relationship is vital to the development of a child. I get you don’t believe it but I assure you the vast majority of straights do and being 97% of the population they are my target audience.
So you aren’t done with me yet, goody. Ring the bell Spanky and I’ll see you in the middle of the ring.
***Is the mother/child father/child relationship vital to the development of a child?***
No, they are not. PARENT/child relationships are vital.
I did my best to find unbiased sources. Granted, one could always punch holes in every study by claiming there were not enough control groups, or the studies were funded by such-and-such, but we need not go there. If you disagree with any of the following articles on gay parenting, please bring us contrasting articles on how kids of gay parents are maladjusted compared to kids raised in hetero environments.
Time Magazine
https://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html
Current Directions in Psychological Sciencehttps://cdp.sagepub.com/content/15/5/241.abstract
Scandinavian Journal of Psychologyhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9450.00302/abstract
HB,
I’m not asking if kids of gay parents are maladjusted compared to kids raised in hetero environments, I’m asking if the mother/child father/child relationship is vital. Your answer is, “No” Got it. Now if I think it is vital and I believe that male/male or female/female homes deprive a child of one of what I consider to be vital relationships does that make me as Nefreet puts it, a homophobe or bigot?
As to studies, if I am going to build significant social policy on Scientific studies you can be sure I’m going to go there: Ask tough questions and demand excellent work. Hey Scientists can be wrong (think the 70’s global cooling scare) and be bought (think big tobacco). Look in science the devil is in the details and unless you can provide details you are simply making an appeal to authority.
When you look at the details you see these studies fall far short of being definitive. Look go ask your friends these questions, “Is the mother/child relationship vital to the development of a child? Is the father/child relationship vital to the development of a child? If they substitute the word “parent” politely point out those aren’t the questions you asked and could they answer those questions. Is there a difference between gay and straight? Let me know.
HB,
Substituting the word “Parent” is a semantic sleight-of-hand. The definition of parent: one that begets or brings forth offspring. What do you call your parents, Parent 1? Parent2? Like the rest of them don’t you call them “Mom” & “Dad”? Parent general term, mom or dad specific term.
Deconstructing one of the most specific, personal, and intimate relationships a person can have and substituting an impersonal and general term like “parent” instead of “Mom” or “Dad” is a pretty steep price to pay for the advancement of an agenda, don’t you think?
Evening Gerry,
***Now if I think it is vital and I believe that male/male or female/female homes deprive a child of one of what I consider to be vital relationships…***
Then you should provide us with reasons as to why you believe this way. What evidence do you have that suggests that such relationships are ‘vital’? (Vital: necessary to the existence, continuance, or well-being of something; indispensable; essential: of critical importance:)
Indeed Gerry, if it were vital that a child have a relationship with one of each gendered parent, then wouldn’t the children of gay parents be maladjusted or disadvantaged in some way as a result? This is CLEARLY not the case, ergo the kids clearly dont need one of each gender to raise them. Is one of each a good thing? Of course. Is one of each better than a matched pair? There is no evidence of one being better than the other. Is one better than a matched pair? Not a chance.
I only suggested we not bother with poking holes in each other’s references because we aren’t there yet, or more directly, you haven’t provided any more reliable and unbiased links than I have. Its fine if you disagree with them, you just need to explain to me why Im wrong in believing otherwise.
***Deconstructing one of the most specific, personal, and intimate relationships a person can have and substituting an impersonal and general term like “parent” instead of “Mom” or “Dad” is a pretty steep price to pay for the advancement of an agenda, don’t you think?***
Couple things- 1. In oder for gay marriage to ‘deconstruct’ a relationship, there has to be a universally constructed relationship to actually deconstruct in the first place. Kids can call their gay parents whatever they want; by their first names, dad and pappy, whatever. Assuredly, it is a mistake to put the value of a relationship between a parent and their child in the title that the parent goes by.
2. Your’e insinuating that there is a predetermined relationship between the mom(s) or dad(s) that gay parents would somehow jeopardize. This is not the case. Each relationship is unique unto the parties involved, and therefor can not be threatened by any other relationships. If there was a “right” example of a relationship, and a “wrong” example, and gays were exhibiting the “wrong” example across the board, then your point would be valid.
3. There is no such thing as a gay agenda.
Good Evening HB,
Evidence? Well if we ignore 4,000 years of human history, the example of every significant culture in human history, the common law of western civilization, the foundational roots of language, the basic understanding of child development, psychology, and psychiatry as well as the teachings of every major religion then I guess I would need more evidence. What did you have in mind that would satisfy you because from what I indicated I’m good on the evidence end.
As i have been saying from the beginning we already know the negative effects of single gender households, they are found in absent father-absent mother studies. These are well designed and well vetted studies that have stood the test of time unlike the contemporary studies most often cited.
As to this statement “then wouldn’t the children of gay parents be maladjusted or disadvantaged in some way as a result” Yes, but out-of-the-closet gay parenting is such a new social phenomenon that a properly structured study has yet to be conducted. You know how these studies work, they don’t depend upon anecdotal citations rather they depend upon statistical analysis of a large body of relevant data and their conclusions are statistical in nature expressed in percentages and trend lines. That isn’t something you are going to get with a study comprised of 78 lesbian couples for example.
Feel free to poke away at the “evidence” I cited in my first paragraph because as I wrote earlier if I’m going to alter a significant social institution before i do so I’m going to poke away plenty to make sure the science is sound and the facts are true.
A most stirring and pleasant dialog, you encourage me.
Gerry,
Four thousand years of history (tradition) does not suffice as evidence. If it does, then blacks should still be slaves, and women stil belong in the kitchen.
The psychiatric and psychological growth of children has already been proven otherwise, with ample amounts of evidence from both nefreet and hb.
The basic teachings of all major religions? I have attended Catholic school since preschool, and I am currently in Grad school. Are you aware that all of the major religions that you are referencing also teach that it is an abomination to eat shellfish, the fat of an animal, and pig. Are you also aware that it teaches to shun women and lock them away while they are one their period. You are also blithely unaware of the fact that these teachings state that it is acceptable for you and I to own slaves. I love how “Christians” pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow. At least Jews and Muslims follow their Holy books entirely. I also love how “Christ-like” Christians always act. I had no idea Jesus was such a hateful, close-minded person. His best friend was a prostitute after all. Is the true definition of a Christian not somebody who follows Christ’s teachings? Well, Christ never preached against homosexuality. Christ never was married, so it must not be too much of a sacred institution if the son of God did not feel the need to condone in the act.
Study your Bible before you try to throw it in people’s face. Otherwise, you risk looking ignorant. This is just coming from somebody who has had to take religion class, which I always Aced, for the past nineteen years.
Also, SINGLE-PARENT is not the same as SINGLE-GENDER. Have you not read any of the previous posts? I included all capital letters so you cannot miss it this time. SINGLE-GENDER refers to TWO PARENTS, but both have the same gender. SINGLE-GENDER refers to ONE PARENT, either one male or one female. SINGLE-GENDER still provides TWO PARENTS for a child to look to. Also, in gay and lesbian relationships, the traits combine to still provide what a child receives from a mother and father. That is why it works. You are clearly not gay, so you will not understand that, but it works. Studies have proven this. In gay and lesbian relationships, there is still a stereotypical “wife” and “husband”. Some gays may be offended when people say that, but my friends and I are not offended because we all know that it is true. One person may not possess all of the traits of the “wife”, but the other partner generally picks up where the other is lacking. That is partially why transgender is included in GLBT. We are the transgender. We can possess both masculine and feminine traits. Heterosexuals may never grasp that concept, but that is how it is.
SINGLE-PARENT** refers to ONE PARENT.
Jonathon,
I have serious answers to your points but given the fatuous nature of your first post are you a serious person who wants to engage in a respectful dialog or have you already decided I’m some knuckle dragging bigoted homophobe and are just showing off by making points you think have no good answer to (they do)?
Please, by all means, prove us wrong. Links, sources, books, organizations, studies, SOMETHING. I’m a progressive debater. My whole life I’ve followed the evidence. In a back-and-forth dialogue each side should want to LEARN something. You have not provided us with any measurable knowledge. Please, proceed.
Ah I can’t resist the temptation to comment.
Social institutions and customs that have existed for over 4,000 years do have an evidentiary weight. For example we have had judicial institutions for 4,000 years are you prepared to say that that says nothing about the value of those institutions even though there have been horrible examples of bad judicial institutions? Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater don’t we look at the merits of individual judicial institutions and discard only the bad institutions?
The same holds for marriage and family. Mother & Father are labels for an objective reality. Males and females exist, they hold some traits in common but there are differences. Suppose you had a can of tomato soup & a can of celery soup, there are objective differences between celery & tomato soup even though they too have some things in common. If you tore the labels off the cans could you make them interchangeable? Of course not, to think otherwise would be delusional.
Women are tomatoes and men are celery. Now if a boy wants to learn what it means to be celery he won’t be looking to tomatoes would he? If a girl wanted to learn what it means to be tomato she wouldn’t be looking at celery would she? If children wanted to know how celery & tomato soup get along they wouldn’t look at two cans of tomato or celery soup would they. Common sense.
Given your extensive religious education, which you Aced for the past 19 years, then you know that it is an abomination to eat shellfish, the fat of an animal, and pig for a JEW. That GENTILES are not required to follow Jewish dietary regulations.
If you missed that obvious distinction you can understand why I’ll take your other religious declarations with a grain of salt. By the way what part of my argumentation is based in religious thought? I only mentioned that every major religion supported conjugal marriage, a statement of fact. My position isn’t based on religious declarations.
***By the way what part of my argumentation is based in religious thought? ***
Hes probably responding to this>>> ***Well if we ignore 4,000 years of human history,*** I suppose its possible that you just didnt want to include the 196,000 years of human history before that. Regardless, gay people have been around for as long as humans have.
*** Feel free to poke away at the “evidence” I cited in my first paragraph because as I wrote to make sure the science is sound and the facts are true.***
Don’t mind if I do. In your F2F link, none of those studies being criticized were conducted after 2004. It was only in 2003 that sodomy was decriminalized, and 2000 was when the first state legalized civil unions. Society has beat down gay people for the better part of history, yet you’re dismissing what evidences they have of being qualified parents because testable groups are too small. Why do you think there aren’t enough gay parents to survey? Once again, someone could find fault with EVERY study published, on your side or mine, but you’re at a disadvantage in your argument because you don’t have any studies for me to poke holes in.
Your suggestion that human existence for the last 4000 years is evidence, only proves that heterosexuals are capable of breeding. The term ‘parent’ is elastic; once the male and female supply the goods, ANYONE can be a ‘parent’. It doesn’t have to be the donating organisms. As such, gay adoptions are legal in every state in the union. Clearly society has no problem with gays having kids.
(From your Jan 14th post) *** Again “absent father” ‘absent mother” studies have indicated the contributions for quite some time.***
As Nefreet pointed out, how are we supposed to know if these symptoms are not because one of the parents is missing? It is entirely possible that had a child with an absent father who gained a second mother their missing father’s absence, would subsequently be restored whatever support and direction they would have otherwise been denied. There is evidence to support this, namely every single study of the children of gay parents. This is significant, and you will find NO suggestion as to the contrary.
*** if I’m going to alter a significant social institution before i do so I’m going to poke away plenty***
How will gay marriage alter heterosexual marriage?
***Yes, but out-of-the-closet gay parenting is such a new social phenomenon that a properly structured study has yet to be conducted. ***So before you will step aside and let gay people have the right to marry, you want proof of their ability to parent without adversely affecting the kids? What better way to create testable subjects than to give them the security of legally recognized marriage to raise their children in? Furthermore, what sense does it make for anyone to require evidence of a gay parents qualifications when straight people are free to marry DESPITE some of them having an obvious inability to parent effectively? Brittney spears anyone? Apparently the only requirement to be a good parent is to be able to copulate. Gays can do that. Again, if you create some hoop for gays to jump through before giving them the right to marry, straight people have to jump through the same hoop. That’s the point of being equal.
Sorry for the multiple posts. Stupid site wont let me consolidate them into attractive little paragraphs on one page. B(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
Still not seeing any objective evidence there.
Next?
Gerry,
Noticed a few points of interest and thought I’d chime in, if you don’t mind. This is becoming something of an unfair match in terms of numbers. I appreciate your bravery and willingness to continue.
You’ve said a number of times this argument about how children need someone to teach them what it means to be a man/woman. Just curious… what does it mean to you to be a man and what does it mean to you to be a woman? What about that meaning is impossible to teach if you are not of that gender yourself?
Also… you said: “Given your extensive religious education, which you Aced for the past 19 years, then you know that it is an abomination to eat shellfish, the fat of an animal, and pig for a JEW. That GENTILES are not required to follow Jewish dietary regulations. ”
If you know your old testament you may recall that this section of the bible is also where the famous quote that “man shall not lie with a man”… oh and btw.. .the punishment the good book puts forth for this crime? Death, of course!
Actually, most Christian faiths follow the Old Testament. As I mentioned, you can pick and choose all you want, but at least Muslims and Jews follow their Holy books in their entirety.
How old are you?? My 16 year old sister can figure this out. You overlooked most of my points, and you deny using religion as a basis, but then you reiterated that you stated that religious institutions follow this structure. If religion is not a basis, then shut up about it and do not refer to it ever again.
Slavery has been around since before the Roman Empire. So it has thousands of years of tradition. Also, homosexuality was widely accepted in Ancient Rome and in Ancient Japan. Traditionally, it was ok to be gay. That tradition changed when Christians, Muslims, and Jews began taking over most of the Western World. So, they changed tradition, and we are changing it back.
As I mentioned, you are heterosexual (presumably). You are never going to understand the mindset of homosexuals. Please, please, please for both of our sakes reread my last post. I really do not like to repeat myself, and I will not repeat myself. You overlooked half of the points I made. Instead, you thought you knew something about religion, tried to make an argument, and made yourself look foolish. I am sure that you will respond to this post repeating yourself and not addressing anything that I state. I see your point. I really do, I am intelligent enough to see your point, but I also invalidated your points. If you are going to continue to act as a broken record, please, save yourself the time and do not repost. I can read your last 6 posts and they all say the same thing, you do not need to keep repeating yourself. It only makes you look stupid. Nothing personal – just some advice if you want to ever be taken seriously. I live in DC, one of the toughest cities to make it in. I know what it takes to be taken seriously.
Women do not need to act a certain way. Neither do men. My best friend’s mother makes nearly $1million/year, so her father does not work. Is it wrong that her mother is the provider (typically the male role) and her father is the house husband (typically the female role)? No, it does not matter which role a gender picks up. Your point seems to be that we need to teach children that women play a certain role and men play another role. Well, my father works and my mother is a housewife. This is more traditional, but I am not going to raise my children (when I have them) with a mindset that they are limited as to what they can do because of their gender. You can raise your child however you choose, I am a Republican after all. But do not tell me that I cannot raise my child, just as well as you can, because he/she is going to have 2 fathers. Live and let live. I am not bothering your family and telling you how you should raise your children, do not tell me how raise mine.
Jonathon,
Like you I don’t like to repeat myself so on those questions like same gender/single parent which I answered in an earlier post I expect you to read those earlier posts. As to why I repeat myself. Hey answer my questions & address the points I made and I don’t have to repeat myself.
How old am I? I am almost 60 years old so if you are a twenty something, SHOW SOME RESPECT!
I am of two minds about answering your posts. There are two old sayings, “Address a fool in the same way he addresses you” & “Don’t address a fool in the way he addresses you.” Which approach should I use with you?
From the start you have filled your posts wjth snide & disrespectful remarks and we can move forward in a more gracious and polite way or we can see what decades of experience in not suffering the company of fools lightly can do in bruising an inexperienced ego like yours.
It is the opinion of three different people on this forum that you are nothing more than a broken record, Gerry, so I’ll try my best to move the argument along into new territory.
What are your thoughts on the claim that denying same-sex couples the ability to marry is labeled as discrimination under the 14th Amendment?
Jeremy,
Welcome! The only way it is unfair is that since I am addressing multiple posters who ask similar questions (without their referencing my earlier posts where I address the question) I am accused of being a broken record. This is compounded, I believe, by my answers being outside of the posters perceptual framework and hitting what I call a “cognitive void” in their minds. My answers simply, “don’t compute” even as I try to reframe them to overcome that limitation.
The best explanation is found in a phrase coined by Marshall McLuhan, “The medium is the message”. It is a phrase meaning that the form of a medium embeds itself in the message, creating a symbiotic relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived.
The gender forms (male/female) embeds themselves in the messages they send so these forms influence how the message is perceived.
Sadly, I must repeat myself because I addressed this very thing in an earlier post, in Part 2 cause this site’s spam restrictions are killing me!
Part 2
“Mother & Father are labels for an objective reality. Males and females exist, they hold some traits in common but there are differences. Suppose you had a can of tomato soup & a can of celery soup, there are objective differences between celery & tomato soup even though they too have some things in common. If you tore the labels off the cans could you make them interchangeable? Of course not, to think otherwise would be delusional.
Women are tomatoes and men are celery. Now if a boy wants to learn what it means to be celery he won’t be looking to tomatoes would he? If a girl wanted to learn what it means to be tomato she wouldn’t be looking at celery would she? If children wanted to know how celery & tomato soup get along they wouldn’t look at two cans of tomato or celery soup would they?”
Children form their sexual identity early before their cognitive abilities are fully formed. Thus they learn about those identities through observation and modeling with little cognitive introspection or evaluation. That’s basic child development.
I got a part three about the OT but this spam thing is killing me so I’ll try later
And you, Gerry, have completely missed our point that your argument of gender segregation is IRRELEVENT to the discussion. It is a red herring, a distraction, from the REAL argument of legalizing same-sex marriage. Ever wonder why no lawyer in the history of this debate has ever brought this argument up in court? Because it’s flawed, irrational, and unsupported by ANY evidence outside of tradition.
Nefreet,
I get you think my argument is irrelevant you have said so several times, kind of like a broken record. I don’t think so and I already addressed the points you brought up the first time you mentioned it.
As to appeal to tradition do you know when such an appeal is not a logical fallacy?
Hint: Newton published his Laws of Motion in 1687 if I say the Laws of Motion have been around for over 300 years am I making an appeal to Tradition?
ARGH! Are you seriously debating what an appeal to tradition is? Really?? No. Length of time, “tradition”, is irrelevent so long as there are logical reasons for having done something for said length of time. Arguing that same-sex marriage violates tradition is a fallacy because there are NO GOOD REASONS TO DISALLOW SAME-SEX COUPLES FROM MARRYING IN THE FIRST PLACE.
EVEN ASIDE FROM THAT, your appeal to tradition is still flawed because marriage throughout history has been an ever-changing institution. In some cultures it’s a business transaction, in some cultures it’s a measure of power, in some cultures people marry for love, and in some cultures same-sex couples are allowed to wed. You cannot use tradition as a rational basis for discrimination.
ARGH! “Arguing that same-sex marriage violates tradition” I”M NOT MAKING THAT ARGUMENT! My position is that conjugal marriage is an institution whose central element (the creation of a male/female home) has withstood centuries of trial and tribulation. There is an unbroken line of evidence from the beginning of recorded history to today that male/female homes provide the best environment for rearing children. Additional evidence comes from psychiatry, psychology, and child development. Further evidence comes from the common law of Western Civilization.
What evidence would speak to you?
(I agree that the spam filter of this website is incredibly annoying)
Gerry, it is painfully obvious to myself and to everyone else reading this forum that your information is outdated. I encourage you to do more research into the benefits of allowing same-sex couples to not only marry, but also adopt or raise their own children. Here are a few links for you:
The American Psychiatric Association – http://www.psych.org
The American Academy of Pediatrics – http://www.aap.org
The American Psychological Association –
http://www.apa.org
and the American Medical Association – http://www.ama-assn.org
All of the above links should be of great use to you. I hope you’ll read them and listen to what they have to say. Or better yet, actually go to a counselor. They can help you overcome your obvious disdain for homosexuals.
Nefreet,
I can always tell when the end is near, unwarranted comments like this appear, “Or better yet, actually go to a counselor. They can help you overcome your obvious disdain for homosexuals.” You actually entered the dialog with this view didn’t you? I never had a chance for an impartial consideration of my views did I?
I know about the links and commented earlier on how political science can be. My position is quite simple:
SSM creates socially licensed male/male or female/female homes. Such homes deprive children of either a father (female/female=no male=no father) or a mother (male/male=no female=no mother).
You believe that children have nothing to do with marriage (we disagree) and that even if they did the mother/child father/child relationship is not vital to the development of a child (we disagree).
So in the end we simply can agree to disagree. I never expected anything more, did you?
Gerry,
***Women are tomatoes and men are celery. Now if a boy wants to learn what it means to be celery he won’t be looking to tomatoes would he?***
And what exactly does it mean to be a man? Do they work in a coal mine, wear boots and drive a truck? Do they come home and smack their wives around a little when the dinner isnt warm enough? If you put that “man” in a dress and lipstick, is he no longer a man? These cans of tomatoes and celery you speak of…indeed society gives them labels according to the arrangement of their reproductive organs and chromosomes, but when you open up a generic can of “men”, it will be empty. Same for women. Save for the basics; penis, vagina, reproductive roles, structural features, what each gender decides to put in the can is up to them. A young boy around lots of women is no less of a man when he grows up.
***What evidence would speak to you?***
Any unbiased links from a reputable organization that claims that gays are lesser qualified to raise children than heterosexuals are. Something has to make you think that gays dont deserve to get married. Its not about the kids; this isnt about gay-parent adoptions…This is about their right to get married. What gives?
Gerry,
I read your post with your wonderfully inadequate metaphor about men being celery and women being tomatoes. I’m asking you to be more specific than vegetables. What precisely about manhood cannot be taught to a young boy unless he has a father to teach him, and the same goes for little girls? So far you’ve only suggested that children need to see how the two sexes love each other. You seem to be suggesting that unless a child has a mother and father to raise them they will not develop a normal sexuality? Is that correct?
I have read this entire thread. Do not assume I am an idiot and have ignored what you have written. I’m asking you to expand on what you wrote, not repeat what you’ve already written word for word again (kinda like a broken record, you might say).
~ “You believe that children have nothing to do with marriage (we disagree) and that even if they did the mother/child father/child relationship is not vital to the development of a child (we disagree).”
No! No no no no no. You obviously haven’t been paying attention this whole time. I never said either of those things.
What I said was, and this is quite literally true, is that PROCREATION IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF MARRIAGE. Where, in any family law code, does it state that a married couple MUST produce children? IT DOESN’T. A sterile couple is just as capable of getting married as a fertile couple as a geriatric couple.
I also NEVER said the “mother/child father/child” relationship wasn’t vital, a strong PARENT/CHILD relationship is what is vital. If a child has a mother and a father, then by all means your wording would apply. If a child has a single parent, or two parents of the same sex, then a close personal relationship is paramount. You are placing a value judgment on having two parents of the opposite sex, when really the sex of the parent DOES NOT MATTER to the well-being of a child.
You have also never answered the question that I and many others have posed to you: what exactly does a male parent bring to a family that a female parent does not? You say they are simply “different”, but surely you have SOMETHING to show that they are? Right? Or wouldn’t your ENTIRE ARGUMENT fall flat on its face?
Gerry,
One more thing to add:
You said, “My position is quite simple:
SSM creates socially licensed male/male or female/female homes. Such homes deprive children of either a father (female/female=no male=no father) or a mother (male/male=no female=no mother).”
I can think of another arrangement of socially licensed homes that deprive children of either a father or a mother… single parent homes. I believe others have pointed this out already but you have failed to address this point. It certainly puts a giant gaping hole in your argument. After all… if we allow single parents to keep their children, thus depriving them of a mother or father, then by your logic we should also allow gay couples to have children as well. Not saying I agree with your logic… just pointing out how it’s not really saying that gay couples shouldn’t not be allowed to have children just because both sexes are not represented.
The challenge here is to talk about a fundamental cognitive process that we take for granted, how we perceive the world around us. This is very, very tough. I’ve already written about some elements of this but let me see if we can pull it all together in a short space.
Marshall McLuhan correctly observed, “The medium is the message”. This is a phrase meaning that the form of a medium embeds itself in the message, creating a symbiotic relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived. The gender forms (male/female) embed themselves in the messages they send so these forms influence how the message is perceived. Once a boy self-identifies himself as a male the primary definition of “maleness” will come from other males, most importantly from his father.
What it means to be a “man” or “woman” is a psycho-social process that involves personal, familial, and social messages. On a very real level what it means to be a “man” or “woman” is like a snowflake at some point of detail no two are alike.
Jonathon illustrates this in his statement, “As I mentioned, you are heterosexual (presumably). You are never going to understand the mindset of homosexuals.” That is true to a significant degree. As a straight man I have little to contribute about what it means to be gay. I would not expect gays to look at my life as a primer on what it means to be gay. They would look at other gays correct? The same thing with men & women. Women look to other women and men look to other men to discover what it means to be a woman or a man. This is an immutable part of human perception and cognition. More to follow.
***Marshall McLuhan correctly observed, “The medium is the message”. This is a phrase meaning that the form of a medium embeds itself in the message, creating a symbiotic relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived. ***
If it came from Wikipedia, it must be true! ~Jest~
***Once a boy self-identifies himself as a male the primary definition of “maleness” will come from other males, most importantly from his father. ***
~Throws BS flag~ The term “Male” only refers to the arrangement of sexual organs and chromosomes. That’s it. There is NOTHING else that being ‘male’ affects. Do you understand the difference between sex and gender?
***What it means to be a “man” or “woman” is a psycho-social process that involves personal, familial, and social messages.***
One could make that assumption, if the individual in question chooses to live from the outside in, mimicking what society tells them is masculine, and parroting what their Dad spoke of when they were younger. Alternatively, if a self identified man exhibits 95% stereotypical female characteristics, e.g. taking the kids to school, picking up the dry cleaning, washing the kids’ soccer uniforms and making dinner, he is still exhibiting characteristics of a MAN. Do you know why? Because he self identifies as a man. One more example. Im gay, but I don’t adopt the stereotypical characteristics of the swishy homos. I drive a Powerstroke with a 6 speed, I own 3 welders (and know how to use them,) I own a number of guns, though admittedly I can’t shoot very well. When people tell me, “You don’t act gay,” I tell them, “Yes I do. If Im gay and I act this way, then this is how gay people act.” Same rules apply to gender. I am the embodiment of ‘what it means to be gay’. Is it just a coincidence that I share identical characteristics of a heterosexual, save for that one little detail about who Im attracted to?
I already disproved the male/father female/mother idea with a personal experience. Again, Gerry overlooked my statements. Do you recall what I said about my best friend’s mother and father? I will not repeat myself, but feel free to look back at the post. It negates your idea that the male plays a specific role and the female plays another because the roles are switched in her family’s situation.
I knew it was a tough point to make. The point isn’t that the social & personal definitions of the gender labels “man” & “woman” vary tremendously. The point is they exist, period. They exist because they symbolically represent immutable biological characteristics of males and females. Once a person self identifies with the label they begin to perceive things through the perceptual lens of that identification as McLuhan pointed out. Once a girl self identifies as a female she will see life as a female and come to accept as authoritative regarding things female views from other females and less authoritative the views of males in regards to things female. The same is true for boys in regards to other males and females.
I think it is ironic that I am explaining to a community that values self-identification and the importance of “coming out” the ramifications of that as it applies to gender.
Gender integrated homes (male/female) enable children to more fully establish their sexual identity. As I wrote earlier in the celery soup/tomato soup analogy: Women are tomatoes and men are celery. Now if a boy wants to learn what it means to be celery he won’t be looking to tomatoes would he? Two cans of tomato soup wouldn’t help either. If a girl wanted to learn what it means to be tomato she wouldn’t be looking at celery would she? If children wanted to know how celery & tomato soup get along they wouldn’t look at two cans of tomato or celery soup would they. Common sense.
We already went around the bush with this one, Gerry, and you refused to address one key point last time, too:
What happens if the child is gay? Seems to me plenty of gay children raised in heterosexual homes learn to grow up and love their significant others just fine.
Logic would dictate that heterosexual kids raised in a homosexual home would do the same, yes? Children with only one parent also seem to be fully capable of love and affection.
You still haven’t given us one example to back up your argument. You’re just parroting what you read somewhere long ago without really critically analying it. I’m sorry, but nobody here is buying it, and we’ve given you plenty of opportunity to defend your position. Maybe it’s time to pick a new topic to debate. You obviously fail at this one.
Nefreet,
Are you seriously contending that a 2,3,4,5,6 year old has a set sexual orientation? Seriously? We keep going over this because the point keeps being missed. Because of the way humans perceive the world, through symbols, and adopt a self identification from a category of symbols, like male & female boys learn what it means to be male from other males and girls learn what it means to be female from other females. Secondarily Boys learn from females what is not male and girls learn from males what is not female. They also learn what a “mother” is from their mom & other moms and what a “father” is from their father and other fathers. Young Children are long on modeling and short on abstract cognitive learning.
I spoke clearly about sexual identity in my post and you changed the terms to sexual orientation, we keep going around the bush because you refuse to engage on the specific topic, substituting a different topic as you did here. In regards to the formation of sexual identity where am I wrong and why? Self identity is a powerful lens through which we view the world, yes? No?
As Jonathon pointed out can a gay person learn what it means to be “gay” from a straight person? Is the reverse true?
1. I never pointed out your last statement.
2. Check anypsychological textbook- children develop their sexuality as early as age 3, age 6 at the latest. That is common sense. Again, my 16 year old sister knows that. You learn it in Middle school Psychology.
1) “As I mentioned, you are heterosexual (presumably). You are never going to understand the mindset of homosexuals.” close enough. So, can a gay person learn what it means to be gay from a straight person? In a family who is the primary source a boy learns what it means to be a male from?
2) Children develop a rudimentary sexual identity (male/female) in early childhood they develop their sexual orientation in late childhood/early adolescence.
Maybe your 16 year old sister isn’t a good source for these things?
You are factually incorrect, Gerry, and again it shows how outdated your sources are. I encourage you to buy a newer psychology textbook instead of relying on something from your college days in the 70s. Children do not “learn” a sexual orientation, and it does not develop later in childhood, either. You keep stating that identity comes before orientation, too, and again your “compass points” analogy is a faulty one. I don’t need to know what I am to know what I’m attracted to. All research on the topic shows that sexual orientation is immutable, and most sources agree you are hardwired from birth to be either gay or straight.
Also, again, you misread my posts. I never once changed the terms from “identity” to “orientation”. The very article we’re commenting on discusses the ability of gays and lesbians to marry, so the entire conversation has been about orientation from the beginning. You are the one that keeps trying to switch topics. It’s ok, we get it, you LOVE the red herring as a debate tool. Time to get with the program and start actually debating the FACTS of the matter.
And PLEASE just start answering the simple questions we’ve posed to you instead of posting non-sensical fluff. Go back and read the questions we’ve asked you. Critically think about what you’re saying. It’s really obvious that you’re just parroting something you heard years ago and can’t diverge from it when given evidence to the contrary. It’s painful for us to read, really. I hope you don’t function like that outside of this debate.
Humans love to “group” things in categories, it is an integral part of the way we perceive and understand the world around us. Once we self identify as a member of a group we then look to the group as a whole and other members of the group as a primary source for information about what it means to be a member of that group.
It is upon this shoal that the SSM runs aground for SSM produces either male/male or female/female households. For boys in a female/female household the male father figure is absent meaning the primary source of modeling about what it means to be male is missing. For girls in a male/male household the female mother figure is absent meaning the primary source of modeling about what it means to be female is missing.
Only in a male/female household do children have equal access to both of the gender types and the modeling of both genders.
You who read this post know this is true, you know the essential nature of self-identification with a group. You know it is true of the gay or straight experience. You know it is true of a national group like “American” for example. Who here thinks a Frenchman can tell an American what it means to be an American?
You know how this works, you aren’t foolish or if you are you have a 16 year old sister like Jonathon (remember Jonathon I encouraged you not to go down the road of personal insult because I don’t suffer the company of fools lightly. BTW this is answering a fool in the same way he answered so you needn’t ask your sister)
You may dismiss or deny this (facts are difficult to refute) but I assure you the 97% of the population who is heterosexual will not and they will continue to reject SSM because of the burden/harm to children.
Nefreet,
I spoke of man/woman you changed that to gay/straight. Man/woman are terms of sexual identity. Gay/straight are terms of sexual orientation.
I believe I’ve answered your questions it’s just they hit a cognitive void you have and “don’t compute”. After 93 comments what questions do you think I didn’t answer? Just list them and I will answer or copy my earlier answers.
Gladly.
Give me some examples of what exactly a father or a mother brings to a family relationship that the other cannot.
Is there something a child misses out on by having two mothers? Two fathers?
Name one benefit a man brings to the family that a woman cannot, or vice versa.
Since you are implying a father, a man, is a necessary component in a two-parent household, what exactly does he bring that a woman cannot?
The “expert” you are quoting must have some sort of evidence to back up his claim, yes?
If there is such clear overwhelming evidence that opposite-sex parentage is superior to same-sex parentage, WHERE IS IT?
Please feel free to provide links, studies, organizations, anything.
Can you name even one organization that supports your argument?
Were interracial relationships socially acceptable 50 years ago? Don’t you think, with the nation’s growing acceptance of gays and lesbians, that 50 years from now this will be a moot argument?
Surely you have other evidence to support your argument besides “gender segregation”, yes?
Please, by all means, prove us wrong. Links, sources, books, organizations, studies, SOMETHING.
What are your thoughts on the claim that denying same-sex couples the ability to marry is labeled as discrimination under the 14th Amendment?
Ever wonder why no lawyer in the history of this debate has ever brought this argument up in court?
Where, in any family law code, does it state that a married couple MUST produce children?
Notice a recurring theme with those?
Nefreet,
I answered most of the questions in earlier posts so going forward I can offer clarification if you simply “cut & paste” the part of my answer you have trouble with.
The lawyer question isn’t relevant enough to the issue to merit an answer, so I’m passing on that.
50 years from know there will be a genetic/hormone treatment that can re-establish a heterosexual orientation. Should gays take the treatment?
WOW. I can’t believe you just went there. So just because gays and lesbians don’t fit YOUR view of “normal” they should be “fixed”? What the hell is wrong with you?
“Since you are implying a father, a man, is a necessary component in a two-parent household, what exactly does he bring that a woman cannot?”
You have never answered this question, Gerry, you only believe you have. And now I’m bored of this conversation as it is clear that you aren’t interested in participating in a dialogue. Especially since you are showing your true colors now with your recent comment about homosexuality being a simple hormone imbalance.
Jeremy,
Of course i answered this, it’s just from your incomplete point-of-view it doesn’t compute, so you think I haven’t answered it. Once a person self-identifies with a group or category they use the group and members in it as their primary reference points and those outside the group take a much less prominent place. An easy example of this is can a straight man teach a gay man what it means to be gay?
So a father brings something no woman can, he brings his “mannishness”. When a boy sees a woman doing things around the house he thinks, “These are things a woman does.” When he sees a man doing the same things he thinks, “These are things a man does” That is a critical difference and something even two women can’t duplicate. It isn’t rocket science and that you can’t see the distinction speaks volumes about how narrow your perceptual framework is.
You aren’t like those in the deaf community who regard cochlear implants as an abomination, are you? Who regard those who think hearing is what we are suppose to do with our ears and by seeking to restore a person’s hearing as bigoted and “deafphobic”? Are you saying that homosexuality is more than a matter of genes and hormones, that it has a metaphysical element to it?
Given the constant refrain of the LGBT community that, “Who would choose to live as a gay person?” and the suffering of young gays what parent wouldn’t opt to have the treatment administered to their young child?
Gerry, if there was a cure for being straight, would you take it?
Nefreet,
In biology function follows form. For example, organs that process sound (Ears) enable us to hear (function). Thus to ask If there was a cure for hearing is a nonsensical question for hearing is the function of ears. From a biological point-of-view the sexual organs have a function defined by their form. When they function in the manner consistent with their essential nature there is no dysfunctionality, hence no need for a cure.
Apart from a metaphysical element that transcends the biology there is no compelling reason not to align the function with the form. Is there a metaphysical element in human sexuality or is it all instinct?
There is nothing “metaphysical” about biology. You can shred that with the rest of the junk mail.
You didn’t answer my question, so perhaps I should rephrase it: “If you could take a pill, or undergo some treatment, or something, to change from being heterosexual to homosexual, would you do it?”
I answered the question and again you are the victim of your inadequate world view. Let me connect the dots with thicker lines. If i could undergo some treatment to change from being hearing to deaf would I take the treatment, “No”. Would I undergo some treatment to change from being heterosexual to homosexual? “No”.
Since you believe this is only about biology you do acknowledge the sexual organs have a biological function defined by their form?
~ “do you acknowledge the sexual organs have a biological function defined by their form?”
Absolutely not, and you are guilty again of another error in logic: the is/ought fallacy. Statements about what “is” do not lend to what “ought” be done. You fail again. Next?
Also, since the spam guard is getting extremely annoying at this point, I’ll ask you this: if you would not be willing to “take a pill” and switch from being straight to gay, why should a homosexual want to?
As Inigo said to Vizzini in the “Princess Bride”
Vizzini: HE DIDN’T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You misapply the fallacy. I am not speaking of a moral “ought” I am speaking of a biological “is” If I say the biological function of the eye (sight) is defined by it’s form that says nothing about any moral “oughts”
Why should a homosexual switch from being gay to straight? Because from a purely biological point-of-view (apart from any metaphysical component) homosexuals are using the sexual organs in a manner contrary to their form, a biological dysfunctionality.
I understand the idea of a gay man sticking his penis in another gay man’s rectum might make you uncomfortable, but I assure you they would say otherwise.
Even IF your argument made any sense, how does it relate to gay women?
Nefreet,
Avoiding the issue isn’t going to get you anywhere. I didn’t say a gay man sticking his penis in another gay man’s rectum might make me uncomfortable I said it was a biological dysfunctionality. If you don’t believe it is set forth your case I’d be interested to hear it. As far as how it relates to gay women you seem a clever chap I’m sure you will figure it out.
No. Your argument is as irrelevent as it is non-sensical. If you haven’t noticed, we humans do a LOT of things that are biologically dysfunctional. If you’re against this one, you’re going to have to be against them all.
I find it funny that you keep moving away from the actual issue at hand. You’re very good at distractionary tactics, I’ll give you that.
Let’s move back to something you simply waved your hand at earlier on: the 14th Amendment. I asked what your thoughts on the matter were, and you avoided the question. In reality this is the ONLY really relevent question posed during this entire back-and-forth. It is THE argument of choice for lawyers on both sides of same-sex marriage. It’s the Constitutional question of our time. Surely you’ve been paying attention to the debates if you’re so passionate about this one?
I answered this in my first post.
“Advocates for SSM are not pushing for marriage equality. They are advocating for the separate right to create gender segregated homes (male/male or female/female) as opposed to the existing right to create gender integrated homes (male/female) They want this separate right to be treated on an equal plane with the existing right.”
There is no 14th amendment conflict especially when you consider in regards to marriage the govt considers sexual orientation as relevant as it now considers race.