So When Did YOU Come Around on Same-Sex Marriage?

[ashley0139]

I'm less focused on the right for people of the same gender to marry and much more focused on the issue of how this impacts childrearing.

That's because there is a good chunk of solid, solid evidence that children who grow up without a father don't do nearly as well in life as those that do. I haven't seen the same data for what happens to kids who grow up without a mother, although that doesn't mean their presence isn't likely just as influential.

My intent here is not to open a new debate on whether the traditional parenting roles (paternal and maternal influence) can be effectively created in same you-know-what (I'm sick of the Dis asterix thing) marriages with children. I can assure there is no credible research whatsoever on that yet, so please don't respond with links to pseudo-scientific "the kids aren/aren't fine" studies by partisan advocacy entities - or references to "Heather has Two Mommies."

Those studies reference having one single parent and one absent parent. That has absolutely nothing to do with same sex couples that are two loving parents to a child.

 

[Ceila]

I'm less focused on the right for people of the same gender to marry and much more focused on the issue of how this impacts childrearing.

That's because there is a good chunk of solid, solid evidence that children who grow up without a father don't do nearly as well in life as those that do. I haven't seen the same data for what happens to kids who grow up without a mother, although that doesn't mean their presence isn't likely just as influential.

My intent here is not to open a new debate on whether the traditional parenting roles (paternal and maternal influence) can be effectively created in same you-know-what (I'm sick of the Dis asterix thing) marriages with children. I can assure there is no credible research whatsoever on that yet, so please don't respond with links to pseudo-scientific "the kids aren/aren't fine" studies by partisan advocacy entities.

So what is your point? You claim that there is research but don't link it, then claim that there hasn't been any credible research on the well-being of children in same-sex families. No research does not equate to proof of a poor outcome, so I'm really not sure what you are saying. Honestly, you may not mean it this way, but your post comes across to me as an implied criticism of same-sex parents.

 

[U2_rocks!]

Rearing children while in a committed and stable SSM has got to be better than a lot of the childrearing that goes on in unstable hetero homes these days!

 

[rickybobby]

Rearing children while in a committed and stable SSM has got to be better than a lot of the childrearing that goes on in unstable hetero homes these days!

I agree with that.

 

[badcramps]

I'm less focused on the right for people of the same gender to marry and much more focused on the issue of how this impacts childrearing.

That's because there is a good chunk of solid, solid evidence that children who grow up without a father don't do nearly as well in life as those that do. I haven't seen the same data for what happens to kids who grow up without a mother, although that doesn't mean their presence isn't likely just as influential.

My intent here is not to open a new debate on whether the traditional parenting roles (paternal and maternal influence) can be effectively created in same you-know-what (I'm sick of the Dis asterix thing) marriages with children. I can assure there is no credible research whatsoever on that yet, so please don't respond with links to pseudo-scientific "the kids aren/aren't fine" studies by partisan advocacy entities - or references to "Heather has Two Mommies."

Umm, what??? So you know better than huge majorities of people with PhDs in sociology, psychology, etc. as well as the disciplinary organizations of these fields in various countries--like, you know, the American Psychological Association? Who knew that the entire field of psychology and sociology in western countries throughout the world was all "psuedo-science"?!

Funny, I would say it's psuedo-scientific to appeal to studies that looked at straight single mothers, straight families that divorce, etc and think that has anything at all to do with married intact same-sex couple families. ;-)

 

[scoutie]

I'm less focused on the right for people of the same gender to marry and much more focused on the issue of how this impacts childrearing.

That's because there is a good chunk of solid, solid evidence that children who grow up without a father don't do nearly as well in life as those that do. I haven't seen the same data for what happens to kids who grow up without a mother, although that doesn't mean their presence isn't likely just as influential.

The evidence actually says that kids raised by two mothers are more successful than kids raised by heterosexual parents. I did a graduate project on it. Not surprisingly, the marriages of two female parents were "happier" (the moms reported that chores and parenting was shared more equally). I've often said I'd like a wife.

 

[Andtototoo]

I have always considered myself very fortunate to have been brought up in/around NYC and fully exposed to the amazing diversity that is human life from birth. Therefore, I knew gay people who were "out" from a young age (in the 1960s). My mother and I had the same gay English teacher in high school and she said that they all knew -- back in the 1950s -- that he was gay and it was a non-issue even then. She said some of the guys would make comments out of the classroom, but they were usually shut down by the girls who loved this teacher to death. (He was one of those amazing, awesome teachers you are lucky to have in your educational career.)

I also think it helped significantly that our religious upbringing taught me to detest dogmatic religious dictates, plus we never brought up to believe that marriage was about children and childrearing. Because of the diversity that is NYC, it was obvious on a daily basis that no one religion should get to dictate how everyone lives.

So as a kid it never occurred to me that gay people shouldn't have the same rights as hetero people. Just never occurred to me. In fact I remember being surprised when I found out that men could not marry men, nor women marry women.

The lesson, I suppose, is that if we are brought up knowing that people are different and that difference is okay (and in fact, makes life more interesting), there is no need to "come around." If however, we are taught prejudice, we have to spend our lives unlearning it.

 

[aristocatz]

I'm less focused on the right for people of the same gender to marry and much more focused on the issue of how this impacts childrearing.

That's because there is a good chunk of solid, solid evidence that children who grow up without a father don't do nearly as well in life as those that do. I haven't seen the same data for what happens to kids who grow up without a mother, although that doesn't mean their presence isn't likely just as influential.

My intent here is not to open a new debate on whether the traditional parenting roles (paternal and maternal influence) can be effectively created in same you-know-what (I'm sick of the Dis asterix thing) marriages with children. I can assure there is no credible research whatsoever on that yet, so please don't respond with links to pseudo-scientific "the kids aren/aren't fine" studies by partisan advocacy entities - or references to "Heather has Two Mommies."

Would you feel more comfortable if it were made a little more equal? In that all children of single heterosexual couples should be given up for adoption & moved to foster parents that have both a mom & a dad? Or ban divorce all together for all couples, regardless of religion or orientation? Maybe all babies, who are born out of wedlock & only have a single parent to care for them should also be removed from that family?

It worked out really great for this kid....http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...n-porch-dead-chicken-speaks-article-1.2276662

Again, how does the parenting of SSM differ from this, if the argument is focused on one gender caring for the child? The only difference I am seeing here is there is no accounting for feelings of abandonment when you were raised with both parents to begin with.

I read somewhere that the highest US divorce rates are among the same religious group that is concerned about same gendered couples & how well they parent, due to only having one gender in the household.....I also read that the highest # of divorces are in states like Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma, etc... I *think* these states were part of the group that previously banned SSM........

I wish people would stop being so afraid of the fact that the entire nation is not controlled under the beliefs of one group. It's ok to let people be happy, even if their happiness is not the same definition as another.

 

[dinolounger]

You cannot extrapolate that data to same *** marriages though.

No, the jury is out on that. Once cannot automatically assume parents of the same gender automatically provide all the same childrearing dynamics as a female mother and male father couple. We don't yet know, because there isn't yet an established base of longitudinal research on children raised by same you-know-what- couples to draw conclusions about whether they do or don't do as well as those "traditional" parents.

Second, while single parent households without a father tend to skew poorer, they are not all poor and the research shows that even kids raised in more affluent "Murphy Brown" type situations (professional female head of household) tend to mirror many of the ills of kids raised in less affluent "Mom only" households. So you cannot ascribe all the damage of dad being absent solely to poverty and are wrong in implying the presence (or lack thereof) of a father hasn't been proven to have a deep, profound impact on children:

http://www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2012/may/21/growing-up-without-dad-future-problems

http://michaelkismet.hubpages.com/hub/Psychological-Effects-On-Men-Growing-Up-Without-A-Father

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ss-children-likely-grow-angry-turn-drugs.html

. there would still be two parents and, based on research I've seen, not as likely as a single parent household to be low income).

The mistake you are making here is assuming good/effective parenting is related to income (and by extension implying dual income household provides the latter). Wrong, it's not all about money - rather, the question I raised (which no one has facts yet to respond to) is how the lack of the paternal or maternal element in a same you-know-what marriage impacts children.

Again, we don't yet know the answer to that question and won't know until there is credible longitudinal research done on large samples over decades by neutral parties. Only then will we know if the outcomes of children raised by "parents" (quotations added because it takes an X and Y chromosome from a male and female pair to create a combined DNA parental child, partners of the same gender can't do that and have to either adopt or add external donors to the equation) in same-you-know-what marriages are the same or different than those of married male and female parents.

 

[SirDuff]

...... We don't yet know....

Exactly, yet you have no problem bringing in research which, as you yourself have said, has many, many facets (one of which is lack of the presence of a person with XY chromosomes), to star the "think of the children" plea. So, it is okay for to directly extrapolate to same sex marriages, but any assumptions/extrapolations that I make are "errors"? How interesting.

 

[aristocatz]

No, the jury is out on that. Once cannot automatically assume parents of the same gender automatically provide all the same childrearing dynamics as a female mother and male father couple. We don't yet know, because there isn't yet an established base of longitudinal research on children raised by same you-know-what- couples to draw conclusions about whether they do or don't do as well as those "traditional" parents.

Second, while single parent households without a father tend to skew poorer, they are not all poor and the research shows that even kids raised in more affluent "Murphy Brown" type situations (professional female head of household) tend to mirror many of the ills of kids raised in less affluent "Mom only" households. So you cannot ascribe all the damage of dad being absent solely to poverty and are wrong in implying the presence (or lack thereof) of a father hasn't been proven to have a deep, profound impact on children:

http://www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2012/may/21/growing-up-without-dad-future-problems

http://michaelkismet.hubpages.com/hub/Psychological-Effects-On-Men-Growing-Up-Without-A-Father

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ss-children-likely-grow-angry-turn-drugs.html



The mistake you are making here is assuming good/effective parenting is related to income (and by extension implying dual income household provides the latter). Wrong, it's not all about money - rather, the question I raised (which no one has facts yet to respond to) is how the lack of the paternal or maternal element in a same you-know-what marriage impacts children.

Again, we don't yet know the answer to that question and won't know until there is credible longitudinal research done on large samples over decades by neutral parties. Only then will we know if the outcomes of children raised by "parents" (quotations added because it takes an X and Y chromosome from a male and female pair to create a combined DNA parental child, partners of the same gender can't do that and have to either adopt or add external donors to the equation) in same-you-know-what marriages are the same or different than those of married male and female parents.

Then why worry about something that has not been proven as "bad"???? Seems like alot of unnecessary stress to put on yourself.

How about this theory: Maybe a well-adjusted child has zero to do with things like poverty or race or gender......maybe it completely has to do with the values & morals & personality of the person(s) that raise the child.

 

[Rhombus]

 

[dinolounger]

Those studies reference having one single parent and one absent parent. That has absolutely nothing to do with same *** couples that are two loving parents to a child.

Please learn to read more carefully, you are quoting me completely out of context. Those links were posted to rebut a point someone made about the absence of a father having no impact. I wasn't stating those studies referenced same you-know-what parents.

I wish people would stop being so afraid of the fact that the entire nation is not controlled under the beliefs of one group.

This is code for "how dare you raise the question of whether a change in certain social mores may possibly have certain unbeneficial side effects."

 

[SirDuff]

Please learn to read more carefully, you are quoting me completely out of context. Those links were posted to rebut a point someone made about the absence of a father having no impact. I wasn't stating those studies referenced same you-know-what parents.

Please learn to read more carefully. The person you quoted (and then attacked) quoted your original post on the subject of studies - not your rebuttal. And, was pointing out the same thing that many of us did (and you just did yourself). Your post cited studies that have nothing to do with same-sex families, yet you are using them as the basis of why you fear for the children of same sex parents.

ETA - Look, I get that being raised in a same-sex family is different than being raised in a different-sex family. However, a few things:
1) I don't actually think that legalizing marriage will make a huge increase in the number of children being raised in same-sex families. It will just change the number being raised in same-sex married families.
2) I don't think that usually literature showing that children raised by a single mother tend to do worse than children raised in two parent households to suggest that children raised in same-sex marriages are at risk is valid.
3) I don't think that these worries are a valid reason to question/doubt the recent ruling.
4) I don't believe that there are many, many worse situations for a child to be in than being raised by two same-sex married parents (again, the married bit is the only change that this ruling makes).
5) Just because I think that the families are different does not mean that I think that they are worse (or, frankly, better). Just different.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Well, I don't know much about Canadian news agencies, other than those in lovely Ontario, so I can't comment on whether or not this is a reputable news source (though I'm guessing no). Also it seems to conflict with this one, which I found through a very simple search: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Simo...rica+finally+follows+suit/11171009/story.html

Alberta seems okay with it.

Anyways, the first article rambles a bit, but it seems that the author is rather angry that, "By legally erasing biological parenthood in this way, the state ignores children’s foremost right: their immutable, intrinsic yearning to know and be raised by their own biological parents." Ummm....no. That's not a right. Let alone a foremost right. And as for an "intrinsic yearning", I really don't believe that exists.

My favorite part of the article you quoted.

- Within moments of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 5-4 ruling on same-sex marriage Friday morning, there was a flurry of reaction on Twitter from conservative Americans, expressing their disgust with the decision in a most perplexing way. In their anger, they vowed to move to Canada.

Alas, they clearly had neglected to notice that Canada legalized same-sex marriage, 10 years ago this summer.

 

[dinolounger]

Then why worry about something that has not been proven as "bad"????

The only thing I have pointed out as bad (which has been inexorably, positively, inarguably proven as bad) is the lack of a paternal influence in the upbringing of a child. The question I have raised (which completely went over the heads of most people here) is whether/how that influence gets embedded in a same-you-know-what parenting situation, particularly a lesbian one. Bottom line at present is we don't know. It's fine to speculate one way or the other, but as I anticipated some are weighing in here not just speculating but implying the question has already been answered, which it most certainly has not.

How about this theory: Maybe a well-adjusted child has zero to do with things like poverty or race or gender......maybe it completely has to do with the values & morals & personality of the person(s) that raise the child.

It would be wonderful if it was that simple. But it's not, because biology strongly suggests parent gender has plenty to do with the nature of their influence.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Please learn to read more carefully. The person you quoted (and then attacked) quoted your original post on the subject of studies - not your rebuttal. And, was pointing out the same thing that many of us did (and you just did yourself). Your post cited studies that have nothing to do with same-*** families, yet you are using them as the basis of why you fear for the children of same *** parents.

WHAM!!!!!

Down goes Frazier!!! Down goes Frazier!!! Down goes Frazier!!!

 

[SirDuff]

The only thing I have pointed out as bad (which has been inexorably, positively, inarguably proven as bad) is the lack of a paternal influence in the upbringing of a child.

No, you pointed out that being raised by a single parent is bad. You did not point out (because you cannot) that the lack of a specific gender (within a two parent family) is bad. And the latter (not the former) is what is occurring with same-sex families.

 

[TeresaNJ]

Well, I hope you are all correct, and there won't be lawsuits filed against churches who decline to perform SSMs. I believe otherwise, and I think it is only a short time until we see them piling up. So, do those who support SSM agree that Brendon Eich should have lost his job at Mozilla? Do you think it was correct to sue the baker & florist who declined to participate in SSMs, even though they cited their religious views as the reason? How do you determine who is genuinely a believer in one man/one woman marriage based on their religious beliefs? Why is it so hard for SSM supporters to understand that many people truly have deeply held religious beliefs concerning SSM? It's not something that one can just dismiss because popular culture calls for it. Chick-fil-a was just voted the number 1 fast food chain in the country. The owner is a deeply religious man, and does not support SSM. His business was threatened to not be allowed to open in Boston & Philadelphia, Boston's mayor & Philadelphia's mayoral candidate stating to stay out. Seriously? How can you say churches & religious institutions aren't going to be threatened with at the very least, losing their tax exempt status? What about the Hobby Lobby lawsuit? Many SSM supporters say live and let live, but that won't happen. You want those opposed to SSM to let SSM supporters "live & let live", but that courtesy will not be reciprocated.

I'd list links to my comments, but I have to find out from the DIS liberal police which websites are permitted, according to their political leanings and say so.

 

[dinolounger]

Please learn to read more carefully. The person you quoted (and then attacked) quoted your original post on the subject of studies - not your rebuttal.

Wrong, they took it out of context.

Your post cited studies that have nothing to do with same-*** families, yet you are using them as the basis of why you fear for the children of same *** parents.

Wrong, and you are simply threatened by anyone daring to raise questions or prompt discussion on ramifications.

It's clear what going on here: anyone who posts anything other than positive narratives of "why they came around" is being attacked and vilified, because the cheerleaders here feel this thread is only for their party and are infuriated by any non-compliant discussion.