:thumbs up: New York

[Hauldren Collider]

I see no indication that two people of the same sexual orientation are any less able to raise a child than one, or for that matter, two. Even if kids need role models of both genders or what have you, given that single parents are allowed to raise kids, two is better than one in my book anyway. If that's what this means I'm all for it.

I don't think this was brought up before, but I agree with it. I think it's plausible, but completely lacking in evidence, that the whole nuclear family thing with a working father and stay at home mom is best for the well-being of the kid, but jesus, there are so many variables with raising kids that it can't possibly significant even if it is true.

[Tupac Shakur]

How exactly could any one person "table" gay marriage as a political issue?

I was using "table" in the parliamentary sense. The Republican head of the New York State Senate didn't have to allow a vote on the same sex marriage legislation, for example. Obviously it's unrealistic that this issue could be sidelined for a generation given the emotions and moneyed interests involved, but it was merely a hypothetical intended to highlight how little same sex marriage actually changes the status quo of American life.

And even in your hypothetical (which I reject because I don't think it's really coherent), the gay rights movement as a whole would essentially stop in place. With DADT gone, gay marriage is "next" and it's not really clear how the movement can proceed until it is achieved.

Why does the movement have to proceed?

[Tupac Shakur]

By the way, **** you guys for turning this into yet another abortion thread while I was at the gym.

edit: And you're both idiotic for accusing the other of being "evil," as though either of your idiosyncratic senses of morality have any objective validity.

[Hauldren Collider]

How exactly could any one person "table" gay marriage as a political issue?

I was using "table" in the parliamentary sense. The Republican head of the New York Senate didn't have to allow a vote on the same sex marriage legislation, for example. Obviously it's unrealistic that this issue could be sidelined for a generation given the emotions and moneyed interests involved, but it was merely a hypothetical intended to highlight how little same sex marriage actually changes the status quo of American life.

Related, though--the gay rights movement will probably never end, at least not for a long time. We still have civil rights and women's rights movements, despite the fact that their (legislative, at the very least) victories have all pretty much been made. They exist almost on inertia alone.

[Asher]

I continue to dispute the notion that gay people are suddenly about to adopt kids at rates on even the same order of magnitude as married couples have children.

What does the rate of adoption have to do with anything, by the way?

Are marriages solely constructs to facilitate adoptions?

Did I miss something?

On a side note, if Asher is correct, there should be no problem with banning abortion and putting the kids up for adoption.

Problem solving

I believe I've been of the position that there's not enough abortions going on...

Too many kids in foster care. Too many religious people having unwanted children which grow up in the system and fester into career criminals.

[SlowwHand]

People from other states flocking to NY to marry is as pointless as previous rushes to a state. If you live in a state that doesn't recognize the marriage as legal, enjoy your time away. When you get back it's going to be the same as when you left.

[Hauldren Collider]

What does the rate of adoption have to do with anything, by the way?

Are marriages solely constructs to facilitate adoptions?

In my opinion, the only particularly compelling reason for marriage is to help facilitate the raising of children. If you're looking to risk losing half your money, I would recommend gambling--you at least have a chance of coming out ahead.

[Asher]

Related, though--the gay rights movement will probably never end, at least not for a long time.

Hmmm?

It's pretty much dead in Canada. We're equal under the law. It's life as normal now.

The movement isn't for gay rights now (there's no more rights to give), but it's a movement to prevent bullying and reduce teenage suicides.

[Asher]

In my opinion, the only particularly compelling reason for marriage is to help facilitate the raising of children.

If that's what you want marriage to be, consider making another construct.

Plenty of people are married without children or marry without children in mind. Some people find love and like the benefits marriage provides (security financially & emotionally...taxes ).

If you'd like a child-rearing contract, then go troll the Dwight Schrute fanclub boards.

[Ben Kenobi]

If that's what you want marriage to be, consider making another construct.

That's pretty arrogant asher. Why don't you make your own construct?

[Asher]

That's pretty arrogant asher. Why don't you make your own construct?

I don't give a ****, so long as the rights are the same. Marriage existed before religions hijacked it, it'll exist after religions die out.

Some latent homosexual Christians seem to be extremely threatened by the possibility of marrying a same-sex spouse because it represents temptation. I'm tired from hearing about your insecurities.

[giblets]

Let's make a new one for gays, called "mariage". It's pronounced the same way.

[Ben Kenobi]

I think it's plausible, but completely lacking in evidence, that the whole nuclear family thing with a working father and stay at home mom is best for the well-being of the kid, but jesus, there are so many variables with raising kids that it can't possibly significant even if it is true.

I guess the question we have to ask ourselves, is there are usually reasons why things are done a particular way, even if the reason why things are done this way isn't obvious.

Say if we were to look at society in medieval times, and we see that there are significant differences, the first question we have to do is step back and ask why? Why were things done this way. Why were these societies organized in such a fashion that is radically different from today.

That's when we start uncovering small things and start to really understand the past.

If both parents work then they need a child minding surrogate. This can be either public school (which is an experiment just over a hundred years old), and daycare (which is much less).

Then there's the question as to who's responsibility it ought to be to look after the children, the parents, or that of society? If someone believes that the ultimate authority rests with the parents and that their first and most important job is to raise them well, that runs into obstacles.

People aren't stupid. There have been barriers erected to families other than two parent, one work, one stays at home, because the fear is not that this is the better way of doing things, but that too many women will choose to stay at home. This is a silly issue. If people want to stay at home and raise their kids, that's probably the best thing for them to do, and society should not make it more difficult to do these things.

As for your argument, that because people make many different choices that means that one cannot possibly have the better outcome, that's really not much of a critique. The point of study and scholarship is to uncover the truth, irrespective of that of which most people do.

Anyways, I think there are studies showing that all else being equal that families with two parents one at home and one at work, is the better option. In real life, not all things are equal, and families have to make decisions that work to their benefit, regardless of the ideal situation.

Then there's the whole question as to how to quantify better?

[Asher]

I wouldn't be opposed to any of the following:

"Marriage 2.0"
"UltraMarriage"
"****lessMarriage"
"Marriage w/ Actual Sex"

[Hauldren Collider]

"Civil Union"

Different terms for different things, does it really matter at the end of the day? It's not like being forced to use the Colored drinking fountain.