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

[badcramps]

Yes, I understand what you are saying. They would all be tragic circumstances, and no, I wouldn't want to see that happen. I wish SCOTUS had left marriage to be one man/one woman as it's been forever, and relegated it to religious ceremonies, and made everyone have legal government contracts between two spouses which would cover all the above that you stated, with exclusions such as parent/child or brother/sister, that kind of thing.

But it has NOT been that way forever. There are historical groups/cultures that have had same-sex marriage as a tradition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

And there are currently *many* religious groups that conduct same-sex marriages. So I'm very confused about what you are suggesting SCOTUS should have done.

 

[Teresa Pitman]

I wish SCOTUS had left marriage to be one man/one woman as it's been forever, and relegated it to religious ceremonies, and made everyone have legal government contracts between two spouses which would cover all the above that you stated, with exclusions such as parent/child or brother/sister, that kind of thing.

Sorry, marriage has not been one man/one woman "forever." Polygamy has been around a very long time - check out the old testament.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Yeah Really,

Psychology Today

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...-finds-children-lesbian-parents-may-be-better

Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/lesbian-parents-teens-study_n_2082658.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...pier-and-healthier-than-peers-research-shows/

Time Magazine
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html

Boston University

http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/

in Conjunction with the American Academy of Pediatrics

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/18/peds.2013-0377

American Psychological Association

http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec05/kids.aspx

University of Missouri (though it looks like the author is accredited through the University of Virginia)

http://web.missouri.edu/~segerti/2210/gayparents.pdf

I especially loved this one because it makes a point that the GENDER of parents or their spouse/partner is not a case in either view point because it's less important then the quality of parenting. Which is what I actually believe. It's all about the parenting, not the sexual orientation of the parents.


Does parental sexual orientation have an important impact on


child or adolescent development? Results of recent research

provide no evidence that it does. In fact, the findings suggest that

parental sexual orientation is less important than the qualities of

family relationships. More important to youth than the gender of

their parent’s partner is the quality of daily interaction and the

strength of relationships with the parents they have.


As someone who SAYS they have degrees in Sociology and Statistics I'm assuming that at least some of the above source are familiar to you and considered credible.

If you want I can pull more....after all as some one with degree's in both EDUCATION and LIBRARY and INFORMATION Studies I assure you I can pull actual references all day long..

I'm not going to suggest that children of same sex couples do worse than children of "traditional" couples because I don't believe that. Having said that, I checked out 3 articles from your list & there wasn't any solid data in any of them. The Huffington Post article & the one beneath it both cited the same 78 children while neither made direct comparisons to studies of children of traditional parenting. In order for true scientific results, you'd have to study both types of homes, using kids from similar demographics & income levels. Perhaps the actual studies did do this, but neither article mentions it. So, either bad science or bad journalism (probably the latter given it was Huffington Post).

The U of MO study didn't come to any firm conclusions stating the role of the heterosexual father in early development couldn't be discounted.

I do agree with the passage you highlighted about quality of parenting being most important.

 

[Ceila]

I believe marriage is a sacrament between one man and one woman, therefore, I cannot "come around" to supporting SSM. I wish the SCOTUS had done it differently. Perhaps leaving marriage as a religious ceremony, and from here forward calling all unions civil contracts, or something of that nature. I don't think they were clear in their definition, and I do think it leaves the door open for polygamy, incest, etc. If we go by the SCOTUS' explanation, how can anyone be denied the right to marry someone if they say they love them? If a father loves a daughter romatically, two first cousins, etc. Sounds crazy, but you know it's going to happen. Now no one can be denied the right to marry the one they say they love. I also think it leaves the door open for lawsuits, by making marriage a civil right. No where in the constitution is marriage listed as a civil right, for anyone.

So, by the reasoning of the bolded, you are saying that an atheist couple would no longer be allowed to be called "married."

Your slippery slope argument still fails logic. Many states, and many countries, have already allowed SSM. None, as far as I am aware, have gone on to allow incest or polygamy. You continue to refuse to acknowledge historic facts when you attempt to predict the future.

And you still don't seem to quite understand the ruling. The basis of it lies in the fact that rights which are afforded to one group cannot be denied to another. It has nothing to do with whether the constitution lists marriage as a civil right. The fact is that opposite-sex couples have been afforded the right to marry; therefore, single-sex couples cannot be denied that right.

 

[badcramps]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say I think it is more properly Christian to oppose SSM than to believe the other things. Sorry. I truly am confused about that. I personally wouldn't refuse to bake a cake, photograph, or whatever business I was in for a SSM, but I would also be honest with them and say I don't support it, and if they still wanted to use my services, which I don't think they would, at least it's out in the open. That being said, I don't think people should be sued either, should they refuse on religious grounds, as I think that is prohibiting the exercise of their religious practices, which is protected by the 1st amendment.

But didn't you say above that you think it is not permissible for a person to refuse service on the basis of racist or sexist religious beliefs?

That is why I brought up the properly Christian thing. You seemed to doubt that anyone might actually hold such religious beliefs that are explicitly sexist or racist. I was suggesting that surely historically many have--e.g. slavery, segregation, much of sexism--but no doubt some still do. It might not be common or popular, but I have no doubt that there are people whose religious beliefs oppose interracial marriage or other "mixing" of the races--e.g. Bob Jones University as a very recent example. Should a baker who holds the Bob Jones type belief--or an out and out segregationist belief--be allowed to express her religion by denying service to blacks or refusing to make a cake for an interracial wedding? The law says no. The 1st amendment does not protect your right to discriminate on the basis of race in public services even if it is a sincerely held religious belief that motivates you.

So I wonder, if you support the law saying no in the race case why not also in the sexual orientation case? Is one kind of exercise of religion worth protecting and the other not and what distinguishes them?

 

[TeresaNJ]

Wow, badcramps, are you a lawyer? You state your case very well! I'm not being snarky or facetious. It's always hard to tell the intent of a person's written word. I hear what you are saying. I wished the SCOTUS had been more specific about who could be married, meaning, not parent & adult child.

No, I don't think interracial marriage should have ever been banned. All I know is that I believe marriage is between one man & one woman as stated in the Bible. Your arguments are all rational ones. Mine will be Bible based. Anyway, thank you for taking the time to have this discussion, & being so gracious. You have given me a lot to think about.

 

[TeresaNJ]

But didn't you say above that you think it is not permissible for a person to refuse service on the basis of racist or sexist religious beliefs?

That is why I brought up the properly Christian thing. You seemed to doubt that anyone might actually hold such religious beliefs that are explicitly sexist or racist. I was suggesting that surely historically many have--e.g. slavery, segregation, much of sexism--but no doubt some still do. It might not be common or popular, but I have no doubt that there are people whose religious beliefs oppose interracial marriage or other "mixing" of the races--e.g. Bob Jones University as a very recent example. Should a baker who holds the Bob Jones type belief--or an out and out segregationist belief--be allowed to express her religion by denying service to blacks or refusing to make a cake for an interracial wedding? The law says no. The 1st amendment does not protect your right to discriminate on the basis of race in public services even if it is a sincerely held religious belief that motivates you.

So I wonder, if you support the law saying no in the race case why not also in the sexual orientation case? Is one kind of exercise of religion worth protecting and the other not and what distinguishes them?

We were posting at the same time. I guess I'm on the fence about your question. There would be no way to know if someone was refusing to do a service based on a religious belief or not, so yes, I think it would have to be illegal to refuse service based on your example. I think a lot of angst & lawsuits could be avoided if the businesses politely told their potential client how they felt, & let the client decide whether to do business with them or not. This way, the business owner isn't supporting, if they truly believe they can't, but not denying service either.

 

[badcramps]

I'm not going to suggest that children of same sex couples do worse than children of "traditional" couples because I don't believe that. Having said that, I checked out 3 articles from your list & there wasn't any solid data in any of them. The Huffington Post article & the one beneath it both cited the same 78 children while neither made direct comparisons to studies of children of traditional parenting. In order for true scientific results, you'd have to study both types of homes, using kids from similar demographics & income levels. Perhaps the actual studies did do this, but neither article mentions it. So, either bad science or bad journalism (probably the latter given it was Huffington Post).

The U of MO study didn't come to any firm conclusions stating the role of the heterosexual father in early development couldn't be discounted.

I do agree with the passage you highlighted about quality of parenting being most important.

Yeah the news articles on the studies are not all that helpful. They often give a mere gloss on what the study actually did or don't really explain it at all or jump to large unwarranted conclusions based on just one study.

The resources from the American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, amicus briefs from those sort of organizations for court cases etc. are likely to be much more helpful since it tends to be of the form of a lit review, looking at all the studies available (and often evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of them.) Also meta analyses which consider a variety of individual studies. This site from Columbia Law School also offers information (aimed at scholarly audiences I believe) on most of the major methodologically sound peer reviewed/published studies out there (I think 76 in total): http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/...eing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

Of course, all of this is sort of beside the point re: marriage anyway though. Even if children of same-sex parents did do worse how would that justify not allowing them to marry? Here's the judge in the MI decision on this point:

"Taking the state defendants’ position to its logical conclusion [about optimal child outcomes], the empirical evidence at hand should require that only rich, educated, suburban-dwelling, married Asians may marry, to the exclusion of all other heterosexual couples. Obviously the state has not adopted this policy and with good reason. The absurdity of such a requirement is self-evident. Optimal academic outcomes for children cannot logically dictate which groups may marry."

I like that guy--he had quite a sense of humor!

 

[badcramps]

Wow, badcramps, are you a lawyer? You state your case very well! I'm not being snarky or facetious. It's always hard to tell the intent of a person's written word. I hear what you are saying. I wished the SCOTUS had been more specific about who could be married, meaning, not parent & adult child.

No, I don't think interracial marriage should have ever been banned. All I know is that I believe marriage is between one man & one woman as stated in the Bible. Your arguments are all rational ones. Mine will be Bible based. Anyway, thank you for taking the time to have this discussion, & being so gracious. You have given me a lot to think about.

Haha, thank you. I am not a lawyer, but I teach philosophy for a living, so a similar amount of time spent arguing.

I'm glad my arguments have given you something to think about. I understand (as much as one can not being religious) having a religious belief that is different from others and still truly loving them and I'm glad to hear you see how awful those sorts of cases I brought up are for lgbq people. And sorry to have been very snarky with you earlier in the thread (maybe yesterday or something).

I don't necessarily love the details of the SCOTUS decision either (though from a radically different perspective than you--I object to a lot of the language from Kennedy about how very special and romantic and important marriage is and the claim that those who can't/don't marry are condemned to loneliness. I would have liked more emphasis on just the bare equal rights issue rather than the romanticization of marriage.) But at the same time, the practical meaning of marriage actually being legal throughout the country mostly overrides all of that. The issues that were caused for lgbq people who couldn't access marriage were just so awful and this one decision has fixed so much of that. Even if it's not perfect, it has made lgbq people's lives so much better in so many tangible ways (SSI, rights to children, medical decisions for partners, etc.). It sounds like maybe you too could appreciate at least the way that those things have also improved overnight for your loved ones.

 

[dinolounger]

Yeah Really

Yeah, really....yes, really ....you really may want to think about the content of links before you post them. Lets dissect why:

Psychology Today

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...-finds-children-lesbian-parents-may-be-better

Excerpt: "While this study is impressive in following 93% of the initially recruited families for up to 24 years, there were limitations just like in any study. The participants were not randomly selected and the information on psychological adjustment was only provided by the mothers. A more comprehensive assessment approach would have included reports from the children themselves and possibly another source like teachers.

In other words, this study never interviewed the children. But it get even better: skew a sample - don't randomize it (ergo, cherry pick) and in a study trying to rate parents, ask them to rate themselves. What kind of "researcher peer" at the university of beer drinking reviewed this drivel?

Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/lesbian-parents-teens-study_n_2082658.html

Another puff piece. No details on sampling methodology other than it was very small (78 students), so one can't assess but suspects it (like the above "research") involved cherry picking adolescents from wealthier households, better school systems etc. Also doesn't specify what the control group was (blathering, gushy article states these kids were "more successful at school" but nevers states who they were more successful than or by how much).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...pier-and-healthier-than-peers-research-shows/

Dead link. Did you bother to check this before posting it?

Time Magazine
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html

Good news: slightly larger sample than the previous "studies." Potential issues: not specified if sample was random (which suggests it wasn't), no details on control group and no quantification of metrics (generalizations are made children of lesbians scored "better" on some measures than the unidentified control group). Bad news: like the other studies, sample limited to lesbian parents. Why? One suspects this may be a function of primarily female "researchers" who find it easier to approach lesbian couples than gay male ones. That would work well in a fieldwork 101 textbook as a case study of how to bias a sample.

Boston University

http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/

More stuff "bookgirl"' probably missed but definitely doesn't want you to know: author of this "study" admits the following:

"none of the studies has been a randomized, controlled trial—the Holy Grail of scientific investigation—and all studies of gay parenting are necessarily small, since there aren’t many gay parents."

Now that I've stopped laughing: random sampling isn't some esoteric, exotic "holy grail" of scientific examination. It's a basic foundation of any well designed study. Here the "researchers" admit that because the universe they are working with is miniscule, the sample is not random.

Let's hang onto this for a moment, because the small survey universe is a recurring methodological issue in everything "bookgirl" has shared.

Gays are 3.5% of the population per the most authoritative source, Gallup. They also are not evenly distributed geographically, with big skews (only 1.7% in north Dakota but 5% in Hawaii). Consequently, researchers trying to study this tiny segment of the population usually end up having to take any respondents they can find who meet the given study criteria. That raises a host of problems that would take pages to explain, but suffice to say the risk of the survey process influencing the respondents is what often happens in these situations and is what the researchers here (and in most of the other studies cited in this list) are dealing with but trying to obscure.

Bottom line: because of the small, non random samples, this would not past muster with any review board made up of seasoned academic researchers.

in Conjunction with the American Academy of Pediatrics

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/18/peds.2013-0377

Not a study, basically a review of literature that speaks more about issues and policy than actual research findings.

American Psychological Association

http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec05/kids.aspx

Here we go again, a study of a small sample (44 kids), not randomized and no explanation of control group. None of these "researchers" would have made it through my freshman year sociology methods course.

University of Missouri (though it looks like the author is accredited through the University of Virginia)

Neither of those institutions being in the top ranks nationally for social sciences research, but that's a separate discussion.

http://college.usatoday.com/2014/12/27/top-ranked-colleges-for-a-major-in-sociology/

http://web.missouri.edu/~segerti/2210/gayparents.pdf

I especially loved this one because it makes a point that the GENDER of parents or their spouse/partner is not a case in either view point because it's less important then the quality of parenting. Which is what I actually believe. It's all about the parenting, not the sexual orientation of the parents.

Actually, I especially loved this one because it dramatically illustrated the complete fallacy that runs through most of these "studies," specifically, drawing big, broad conclusions from miniscule samples. The researchers here claim to have interviewed 12,000 adolescents and found only 44 from gay parent households.

Bottom line: if one is seeking rigorous investigation of parenting outcomes, you aren't going to find it in "studies" relying on tiny, non-randomized samples, where some studies ask parents to rate themselves, where control groups and the metrics employed to make comparisons to them are not specified and where the authors are in many cases from entities with obvious agendas.

 

[bookgirl]

still better than what you've provided which is studies on single parent families NOT same gender parents.

Small sampling or not still more credible than what the opponents on this thread has pulled up and I doubt the APA and the AMA which were sources in those articles are going to back something that has no merit.

As for the Washington post link not sure why it didn't transfer. And yes I tested the original links but probably lost something in the transfer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...pier-and-healthier-than-peers-research-shows/

Slightly larger sample. This was compared to controlled data. Although the focus of the study was stigma the data gathered showed they scored no worse and in some fields better than other children.

Crouch and his team surveyed 315 same-sex parents with a total of 500 children across Australia. About 80 percent of the kids had female parents and about 18 percent had male parents, the study states.

They also used 30 years of prior data. Still not randomized but still a better sampling with a lot of data to set some background and a 'norm' to compare it too.

Oh and putting my screen name in quotes, whatever that was supposed to mean, and saying I didnt want people to know doesn't exactly make sense. I posted the articles. Kind of the opposite of hiding it.

That are not perfect but they are what we have, and what people a whole lot smarter and more experienced then either of us consider to be credible.

I think the AMA and the APA trump any spitting match on a message board.

 

[ZephyrHawk]

I wish the SCOTUS had done it differently. Perhaps leaving marriage as a religious ceremony, and from here forward calling all unions civil contracts, or something of that nature. I don't think they were clear in their definition, and I do think it leaves the door open for polygamy, incest, etc. If we go by the SCOTUS' explanation, how can anyone be denied the right to marry someone if they say they love them? If a father loves a daughter romatically, two first cousins, etc. Sounds crazy, but you know it's going to happen. Now no one can be denied the right to marry the one they say they love. I also think it leaves the door open for lawsuits, by making marriage a civil right. No where in the constitution is marriage listed as a civil right, for anyone.

I explained this in a different post, but I'm going to assume you have better things to do that to read all my posts. The government could abolish recognition of marriage and only acknowledge civil unions, but that would not make gay marriage go away. Because some religions have no problem with gay marriage, and would continue to perform them. And the government would not be permitted to make a law to stop them.

As for your other quoted points, the SCOTUS decision does not say that you can marry anyone you love. The whole "Love Wins" thing is really a social media concoction. The SCOTUS decision says you can't deny benefits (in this case, the benefit of marriage) to someone because of their gender. It's preventing discrimination, not promoting "love". SCOTUS made no definitions. SCOTUS merely recognized that gay citizens need to be treated the same as non-gay citizens. They granted gay people no rights, they merely include gays in the already existing definition of "people of the United States".

What if a father loves his daughter? Well, for one, is his daughter a minor? If so, she can't contract. And neither could his dog, car, turtle, insert nonsensical analogy that's being thrown around recently. Also, he'll run up against the incest laws present in all states (which, are not gender based, and are thus non-discriminatory). What if first cousins want to marry? Well, I hate to tell you this, but they just have to pick one of the several states that permit that level of consanguineous marriage and have their ceremonies there. It's not just a joke that some states permit kissing cousins.

As for polygamy, the reason that won't be permitted is because...and I can always tell a non-lawyer by their use of that analogy....there would need to be a giant, unprecedented, massive overhaul of a large body of existing laws. To allow gays to marry we change the words "husband and wife" to spouse (and those states that enacted specifically anti-gay marriage laws will have to delete them, of course). It's actually pretty easy. If we were to allow polygamy we would need to completely change the rules of probate, of tax law, of family law, of criminal law....I could go on. Our entire legal system is based on an idea of monogamy, it is not based on discriminating between men and women (or at least, it's not supposed to be). As I've said in another recent thread, I'm not against polygamy as an idea (I'd like a second husband who could stay home, do the cleaning and cook our meals!), I just think it would be well nigh impossible to implement.

As for your point on lawsuits because marriage is now recognized as a civil right, I'm not entirely sure what these lawsuits would be about, so I'm not going to say you're necessarily wrong. But, I would say that marriage was recognized as a civil right after Loving v Virginia and has been one ever since.

 

[scoutie]

Except that a poster above did her thesis on a similar subject that found children of lesbian couples did better than children of M/F couples.

Oh, really? We'll believe that when a credible link (i.e. showing the academic institution, her name, degree program and the complete thesis) is provided here

I can cite evidence if you would like. I attended the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and received a master's in Teaching Critical Thinking. My name is omitted for obvious reasons. The evidence does show that children of same S E X FEMALE couples are "more successful" (I realize that "success" might mean different things to different people, but success in this paper was defined as completing school, being employed, enjoying a satisfying relationship, being tolerant of others, etc.) just as well adjusted, and the female couples reported more satisfaction in their marriages. I didn't look at research for same s e x MALE couples, because that wasn't the focus of my paper. Of course I did not want to imply that children of heterosexual couples weren't well adjusted or successful. My kids clearly are.

 

[scoutie]

Double post

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

I wish SCOTUS had left marriage to be one man/one woman as it's been forever, and relegated it to religious ceremonies, and made everyone have legal government contracts between two spouses which would cover all the above that you stated, with exclusions such as parent/child or brother/sister, that kind of thing.

Um no. For much of its history marriage allowed one man multiple wives. Polygamy wasn't outlawed in the entire U.S. until the mid 19th century.
And what you clearly wish they had done is to create a sort of Plessy Vs Ferguson type marriage system where gays were relegated to a second class tier of non-marriage civil unions.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

I can cite evidence if you would like. I attended the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and received a master's in Teaching Critical Thinking. My name is omitted for obvious reasons. The evidence does show that children of same S E X FEMALE couples are "more successful" (I realize that "success" might mean different things to different people, but success in this paper was defined as completing school, being employed, enjoying a satisfying relationship, being tolerant of others, etc.) just as well adjusted, and the female couples reported more satisfaction in their marriages. I didn't look at research for same s e x MALE couples, because that wasn't the focus of my paper. Of course I did not want to imply that children of heterosexual couples weren't well adjusted or successful. My kids clearly are.

Now that might be good enough anywhere else. But this is the dis. We know more about medicine than doctors. We know more about law than lawyers. We know more about psychiatry than psychiatrists, We know more about logic than someone with a masters in teaching critical thinking too.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

Now that might be good enough anywhere else. But this is the dis. We know more about medicine than doctors. We know more about law than lawyers. We know more about psychiatry than psychiatrists, We know more about logic than someone with a masters in teaching critical thinking too.

I think my IQ has gone up considerably since joining. It must be the rub factor.

 

[dinolounger]

what you've provided which is studies on single parent families NOT same gender parents.

One of the more infamous quotes from Adolf Hitler was "if you tell a big enough lie and tell if frequently enough it will be believed."

Unfortunately, use of that adage appears to be alive and well here. Actually, that's not surprising given the subject matter and background of many of the posters. For decades, many in the LGBT universe have parroted the big, archaic lie that 10% of the population is gay. That is wrong (the actual number is 3.5%), but you can still hear that lie stated regularly, because Hitler was unfortunately correct: repeat the big lie frequently enough and it becomes "truth."

We have a smaller version of this nonsense going on in this thread, where the blatant lie that I cited studies on fatherless children as being ones on gay parenting is being repeated, since some here are furious at the fact I dared to raise questions during their party.

Which is why they are using "repeat the lie frequently" playbook and following it page by page.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

Godwin's Law has been achieved. End of thread.


For those interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

 

[ariel71]

I don't know why we're debating "the children" from a philosophical perspective. The courts don't consider someone's fitness for parenthood before issuing a marriage license. They don't consider the effect on the children when issuing marriage licenses to divorced parents who will be creating a blended family.

It has no relevance to the legality of SSM just as it has no relevance to the legality of heterosexual marriage. To even bring it up in the first place is illogical.

ETA - not meant to slam anyone who tried to rebut dinolounger. S/he has made illogical claims with googled proof that's not really proof on at least one other thread I've been on. Just saying to save your breath since it's a moo point. You know, like a cow's opinion.