Civil Unions for ALL, and to all a good night.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Elok
I don't see why two gay guys shouldn't be allowed to adopt-I've never heard of any studies done that suggest being raised by gays screws kids up.

Can anyone provide a link for a LONG-TERM study on this issue? Me thinks we are peeing in the wind with assumptions here.

[FlameFlash]

Originally posted by Arrian


I meant a possible cap on the DEDUCTIONS for the kids - the benifits. You seem to think I'm trying to restrict childbirth.

-Arrian

Heh... jumped the gun.

Any child deduction credits should be given regardless of the genders of the parents, since it is ultimately for the benefit of the kids. Just don't give it to people above a certain annual income level.

I'm thinking that with as expensive as kids are, and with as much extra buying as they require, the sales tax revenues alone would generally cover a deduction in a year if the deduction is the same for every family with kids.

Molly, if you keep the issue of gay marriage focused on the right of two people to bond together and obtain the same rights to property and privileges that married folk normally have and keep the matter of kids completely out of the picture, you will get sympathy and support. Poo-pooing the family issue and contending that kids are not best raised with mom and dads in a stable, loving relationships can only alienate people otherwise inclined to support you. Almost everyone is convinced (at least here in America) that raising kids in traditional familes is best.

Marginal agreement from me... it depends on the role-model availability. A lot of times single-parent families, or from what I understand of why it's said traditional is best, is because the (generally) male role-model is missing.

If the missing role-model is replaced by either extended family members or a family friend, the 'traditional' family isn't as important. The problem is finding that good missing role-model.

And the arrogant, narrow-minded belief that kids raised by two parents are somehow superior to kids raised by single parents will alienate adults who were raised as children, by single parents -- not to mention alientating people who have the common decency to respect those who are different from them.

Yes, because those people should be drug out into the street and shot.

I think I made my point simply in response to Ned.

No. At least I've never seen even one valid benefit articulated (I don't count "keeping bigots happy" as a benefit to society).

In Ned's sort-of defense, it's hard to argue that two parents aren't better for a child than one, MrFun. I don't think it makes them "superior" to single-parented kids, but it's certainly a more stable environment. With that said, I don't see why two gay guys shouldn't be allowed to adopt-I've never heard of any studies done that suggest being raised by gays screws kids up.

There really hasn't been enough time for a study to be done on that situation, but I agree that it's doubtful that the child comes away any worse-off...

My big beef is people having kids when they can't support them long-term, so if the adoption agency deems them to be worthy (income wise along with everything else) why not let them adopt?

Can anyone provide a link for a LONG-TERM study on this issue? Me thinks we are peeing in the wind with assumptions here.

You're right... but we can't really assume anything in the opposite direction either.

[Wezil]

Flameflash - I'm really not trying to be argumentative on this subject. My politics lean to libertarianism, hence other peoples sex lives are not an issue to me. I am concerned about the 'ideal' situation for children and I see patterning as important. I am open to being proven wrong but it has yet to be done. The fact is - we don't know the longterm effects (to the best of my knowledge anyway), hence my question.

I agree, assumptions can not be made either way on the evidence presented, but if you reread the thread, most posts (either way on the issue) are making just such assumptions.

[FlameFlash]

Originally posted by Wezil
...

I agree, assumptions can not be made either way on the evidence presented, but if you reread the thread, most posts (either way on the issue) are making just such assumptions.

Hey, I completly agree with you. The thing is, society still isn't sure what makes a good parent for the most part IMHO since every kid is different.

My wife, for example, turned out better than me, probably, yet her parents sucked. Both sets of them (she was adopted at 6.)

I, on the other hand, adopted as an infant into a silver spooned family have now been reminded of how 'the other half' live since my mother (only surviving parent) wasn't very supportive of the marriage.

Now we have two kids, and while I'm told that I'm a good parent by other observers, I have to credit how smart my son is as well... along with what I remember from my father (and home videos).

I know my wife constantly is worried about being a bad mom due to her past parental role-models, and yet I think she's better than I.

All it does is show that even the definition of parenting is still up in the air as far as I'm concerned and so as long as the couple, or the individual, long term can provide for the basic needs of a child (food, shelter, clothing) who are we to make any other further judgements until abuse (mental or physical) is proven?

[Wezil]

Agreed. Good parents/people come from awful homes and vice versa. Unfortunately we need statistical evidence upon which to make such decisions as it applies to public policy. A 'gut feeling' doesn't cut it for me. I would err on the side of caution until such evidence is available.

As to marriage/civil unions (the topic of the thread after all...) - My preference would be to take marriage completely out of the legal realm and make it the exclusive jurisdiction of religion. The State will recognise Civil Unions of all that apply and qualify (age requirement for example).

Chuches/mosques/synagogues can 'marry' at their discretion.

Otherwise I see an another conflict down the road when 'non-traditional' couples use the courts to force religious institutions to marry couples against the beliefs of the religion. Not such an absurd prediction for one that twenty years ago could never envision how far and fast the 'gay marriage' movement has come.

[Giancarlo]

So we gay people are unfit to have children, wezil? All we demand is marriage, and equal rights.

[FlameFlash]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
So we gay people are unfit to have children, wezil? All we demand is marriage, and equal rights.

Boy that's in no way what was said.

[molly bloom]

Perhaps someone would be good enough to define this 'traditional family' with specific references to history, rather than wishful thinking, or religious or political ideology.....

Two parents are not necessarily better than one- not if one of them is an abusive alcoholic, or one is a drug addict, as opposed to a caring single parent trying their best to bring up children in a loving environment.

And even if they were better than one- given that in modern Western societies so much of the childrearing burden has been placed on the mother/wife, doesn't this then mean we should be encouraging two lesbians to have children?

[FlameFlash]

While I agree with you molly, I'll also attempt to define this 'traditional family' from how I understand it:

I picture American 50s with the added bonus that women work and are more politically aware, active, and the self-worth increases of both parents having a career actually improves their parenting skills.

Then there's the more cynical 'traditional' family:

Single mother.

The last was just my thinking on current, unfortunate trends as I see it, it's not based in anything other than my dissapopinted opinion.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by FlameFlash
While I agree with you molly, I'll also attempt to define this 'traditional family' from how I understand it:

I picture American 50s with the added bonus that women work and are more politically aware, active, and the self-worth increases of both parents having a career actually improves their parenting skills.

Well you see, in part that's my point: I knew a 'traditional family' in London, where the father had to leave for work before his children were out of bed in the mornings. Then when he arrived home, his children had already gone to bed.

In effect, his wife was the sole parent seen by the children. His wasn't the only case of an 'absent' working father who spent hardly any time with their children, whether through choice or economic necessity.

Ideals very rarely match experienced reality, and in fact are just so much propaganda for shiny haired, shiny teethed politicians and religionistas.

[Elok]

Ming: The way I see it, the big issue here is separation of church and state. That people are viewing a legal contract with religious fervor at all is a bad thing IMO. I'm not saying that a civil marriage can't have tremendous spiritual significance, but that significance will stem from the feelings and strengths of the individual people concerned, not the ceremony itself.

That's actually the main reason I began the thread, to be honest. I'm tired of the GOP trinity of "America, apple pie, and that Jesus fella I hear such nice things about." Can we all agree that, when church and state cease to be separated, it's very bad news for the former as well as the latter?

[Wezil]

I won't even try to define traditional - that was why I put it between ' '

Giancarlo - Not what I said but that's OK. Flame away. I explained my thoughts on marriage/civil unions. I would accord gays the same LEGAL status as any other couple. This is a problem to you apparently?

Molly - My views can't be any further from religious roots - I'm an atheist. And yes, you are absolutely right. There are some awful two parent 'traditional' (notice the quotes) families out there where a child would undoubtably be better off in a gay household. No question about that. The issue is one of the society as a whole and not one, two, or a handful of anecdotes. Statistically children from single parent families are in greater danger of a number of 'bad results' than those from two parent families. This doesn't mean every single parent does a crappy job. Hence preference for adoption is given to two parent families - no? My claim is that we have no statistical evidence over the long-term as it relates to children raised in gay households. If you have such evidence please present it for I would love to agree with you.

[FlameFlash]

Originally posted by Elok
Ming: The way I see it, the big issue here is separation of church and state. That people are viewing a legal contract with religious fervor at all is a bad thing IMO. I'm not saying that a civil marriage can't have tremendous spiritual significance, but that significance will stem from the feelings and strengths of the individual people concerned, not the ceremony itself.

That's actually the main reason I began the thread, to be honest. I'm tired of the GOP trinity of "America, apple pie, and that Jesus fella I hear such nice things about." Can we all agree that, when church and state cease to be separated, it's very bad news for the former as well as the latter?

And there somebody goes with the current understanding and practice of US Constitutional Law... let alone the fact that the intent of the separation of chuch and state was only to keep a national church from ever being established.

At the time of ratification there were at least two, maybe three state churches that eventually dissolved not because of court cases, but because there was no longer a need for them.

The whole prayer in schools crap, cities who use a Christian symbol on their seals, that's not covered by the Constitution as it was written, it's covered by the common law that has resulted from 200 years of constitutional inference and interpretation.

The funniest thing about this debate is Bush's claim that there were... oh great, now I can't think of the word... legislative judges as opposed to interpretive judges when the fact of the matter is those judges in Mass. were actually more in-line with the founder's thinking...

Of course, if the Mass. decision was in regards to the Mass. constitution then this whole thing is moot thanks to the beauty of Federalism.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Wezil
I won't even try to define traditional - that was why I put it between ' '

My claim is that we have no statistical evidence over the long-term as it relates to children raised in gay households. If you have such evidence please present it for I would love to agree with you.

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/001061.html

Follow the links to the ACLU and legal brief studies.

[Wezil]

Molly - Thanx. I will read the links you posted (except 1st one which I can't access here at work...). Hopefully I can find time during work tomorrow to respond.

Btw, do you consider 'two decades' long-term as it applies to outcomes of childrearing? Twenty year olds - max?