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

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by 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?

Turn it the other way around- ask how long homosexuality has been decriminalized even in 'progressive' Western industrialized countries, and you might see why there aren't older studies of lesbian and gay parenting. Decriminalized only in 1967 in the United Kingdom*.

Besides which, noone promoting 'traditional families' ever seems to look at burgeoning divorce rates and say- 'well, gee, these things sure don't seem to work too well- let's think of something else.'

*The Wolfenden Report and reform

In 1957 the Wolfenden Committee published its report. The Committee recommended that consensual homosexual behaviour between adults – over 21 – should be decriminalised, except in the armed forces.
In 1960 the Homosexual Law Reform Society held its first public meeting. Over 1000 people attended.
In 1967, ten years after Wolfenden, Leo Abse introduced the Sexual Offences Bill 1967 with support from Roy Jenkins, then the Labour Home Secretary.

http://www.stonewall.org.uk/stonewall/information_bank/criminal_law/sexual_offences/

[Ned]

Molly, et al., I think you have to see the movie Antoine Fisher to even begin to understand the emotional needs of a child to be part of his own family.

We subsidize home ownership in a very major way here in the US. I would suspect that home ownership is the single greatest subsidy in the US. Why do we do this? Because we believe that home owners, particularly men, are more responsible citizens.

In the same manner, married men are far more responsible than unmarried men. That is one of the reasons we subsidize marriages regardless of whether there are children.

As for children, it is self-evident they are happier and better adjusted as a whole if they are raised by their own parents. This does not suggest that every marriage is happy and that every mom and dad are good moms and dads. But on the whole, I think it is almost self-evident that a kid's own parents will care more for the kid and take better care of him or her than strangers. How many kids prefer having their own dad around rather than a stepdad, just as one example?

When it comes to kids placed for adoption, it just seems to me that we favor the traditional family model if there is a choice. If there is no choice, then OK, as adoptive parents will undoubtedly take better care of a kid than a series of strangers in foster homes.

BTW, I assume, without evidence that married gays and lesbians would similarly be more responsible citizens than unmarried. If this assumption is correct, society should promote gay marriage just as much as it does other marriages.

[Wezil]

I agree re- divorce stats. But I've already said single parent families fall below the ideal statistically.

I understand the changes in the law are relatively new hence a lack of GOOD data. Hence my preference to wait for such data.

A quick review of the links you provided do not impress me. The two main briefs cited (Delong v. Delong and Boswell v. Boswell) use old sources (amplifying the good data problem). Most references are to 80's and early 90's reasearch with some references even older. Where is the new stuff?

I'll confess I didn't read the pro-same-sex site. The conclusions would be obvious and suspect.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned

In the same manner, married men are far more responsible than unmarried men.

How extremely presumptuous and simple-minded of you.

[FlameFlash]

MrFun, Ned's talking statistically, give it a rest.

As far as the divorce rates go, at least in the US they're flawed statistically, so we really can't give it much credence.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun


How extremely presumptuous and simple-minded of you.

This is well known, Mr.Fun. I find it interesting that the statement is even under scrutiny.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Wezil
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?

What we demand is civil marriage. Civil unions are a merely inadequate. Let me explain: Some states may choose to recognize civil unions and others would not. The government must recognize same-sex civil marriage and grant all the rights a heterosexual marriage would be granted. Civil unions do not afford these rights.

[Elok]

Cullions. I have a fair amount of liqueur in me, FF; are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? Be less subtle!

I'm not talking so much about the absolutely rigid separation of church and state so much as I am about the danger of a religiously-oriented state becoming a religion itself. There's no doctrine in government, and in ours there's nothing but one guy put up there by the fickle moods of mob mentality (I'm in an anti-democratic mood tonight, I guess). The government is worthy of no more or less reverence than humanity itself.

EDIT: smiley maintenance.

[Ming]

Would somebody please explain why religions should hold a monopoly on the term marriage.

People seem to be arguing that govenment should do civil "unions" while marriages only be performed by some relgion... I see this as just rolling over and playing dead for the relgion crowd... Why should any single religion be able to dictate who can get married if they aren't even members of the religion. Why should they have that right to impose their moral point of view on others... By saying governments can't marry people... you are giving religion the power over the state... which is not seperation of church and state.

[Giancarlo]

To the religionists on this forum: What about heterosexual atheists that want to get married? Should they also be barred from getting married?

[Elok]

By saying governments should marry at all you are stepping outside the proper bounds of government, which is to impose order on society, not to decide morals or profound spiritual truths. The Gov't. shouldn't "marry" couples in the traditional, sacramental sense of the word, any more than legal contracts should include provisions for the signers dying and being reincarnated. So far as the Federal Government is concerned, marriage should be nothing more than a set of legal rights granted within the context of a legally binding agreement. If you think it goes further than that, well, that's for you to decide. If you don't want to be "religious," in case of, Idunno, buddha-cooties or something, you can form a philosophical society of Ain't Married Life Swell. There's no restriction of rights involved, it's just not the government's job to perform.

[Elok]

GC, if I qualify as a "religionist," I say sure, if you mean "marry" in the same sense as the US is now debating gay marriage. Ultimately the government has no right to make religions perform sacraments against their will, but it has no reason to deny equal rights based on an opinion that is not the slightest bit relevant to civic duty.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Elok
GC, if I qualify as a "religionist," I say sure, if you mean "marry" in the same sense as the US is now debating gay marriage. Ultimately the government has no right to make religions perform sacraments against their will, but it has no reason to deny equal rights based on an opinion that is not the slightest bit relevant to civic duty.

Civil marriage anybody? And you still didn't answer my question, religionist.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


What we demand is civil marriage. Civil unions are a merely inadequate. Let me explain: Some states may choose to recognize civil unions and others would not. The government must recognize same-sex civil marriage and grant all the rights a heterosexual marriage would be granted. Civil unions do not afford these rights.

Then you oppose Kerry's position that this is a state matter?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ming
Would somebody please explain why religions should hold a monopoly on the term marriage.

People seem to be arguing that govenment should do civil "unions" while marriages only be performed by some relgion... I see this as just rolling over and playing dead for the relgion crowd... Why should any single religion be able to dictate who can get married if they aren't even members of the religion. Why should they have that right to impose their moral point of view on others... By saying governments can't marry people... you are giving religion the power over the state... which is not seperation of church and state.

Explain to me Ming why the government should be involved at all in defining who should be married and who should not?