The banning of homosexual marriage, and banning of Civil unions.

  • News
  • Thread starter wasteofo2
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Civil
In summary, eleven states passed laws defining marriage as between a man and woman, eliminating homosexual civil unions as a possibility. Eight of these states also included provisions to prohibit transgender people from obtaining marriage licenses. This is a worrying trend, as it seems to be based on intolerance and bigotry. There is a debate going on in some European countries as to whether or not gay marriage is a good thing, with most people concluding that it is not. This is a hypocritical stance, as America has a very high divorce rate.
  • #71
russ_watters said:
In any case, such an increase probably would also decrease the number of heterosexual-couple families:

I see no evidence for this. If you want to make me see both sides you will need to not just suggest questions - there is a good chance I've already asked them myself.

How can you say that? Child custody/adoption matters is one of the primary reasons why homosexual couples would want to be legally married.

Those are excellent points. When you ask, "How can you say that?" the only answer I can give is that I typed it out and hit "Submit", much like anyone else. :grumpy:

Custody cases could certainly be an example of something preventing homosexual couples from raising their children now. How often they are ruled against because they are married is not a statistic I know.

I particularly like both examples you gave because they show that the number of homosexual couples rearing children can increase without necessarily reducing the number of heterosexual couples.

There's a big difference between that and the current situation: that marriage resembles the version you see in religion. It wasn't illegal then and it isn't now. It isn't the ceremony that is important to government, its the structure..

How can you say that? Just kidding! ;) Seriously, the first statement is patently untrue. Christian marriages involve God at a very fundamental level. I'm not sure what you could mean by "resembles" but even the appearance of a religionless civil union is very different than a Christian marriage. There are any number of biblical texts that can be used to support this - you probably know more than I.

I'm not sure what you could mean by structure. The structure of a religious marriage is between a man, woman and God. When you say that religion should define marriage for the government, this is the only acceptable structure you could mean. Is removing God from that structure okay, but swapping one of the person's sexes not? How can you justify that?

I still hold that using a "heterosexual child rearing is superior to homosexual child rearing" argument against gay marriage holds no water, and that trying to define marriage in religious terms is a selective ploy that has recently been made that has little real meaning.

Thank you for your responses
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
Evidence from the current literature suggests that having two parents of the opposite sex present isn't sufficient to explain the positive effects of growing up in a household with married parents. Instead, it seems to be the traits of those people that leads them to seek a marriage that makes them the better parents. This has two implications in the current administration's policies: 1) pushing single parents to get married isn't likely to improve the upbringing of their children if they don't really want to get married, and 2) homosexuals who want to get married just might make as good of parents as heterosexual parents who are married (until they are allowed to marry, we can't really find the answer to this second possibility).

All of the following quotes are from the same source (it's a lengthy article, and I've tried to extract the essence, but I recommend reading it in its entirety if you have access to the journal).
Aronson, SR and Huston, AC
The Mother–Infant Relationship in Single, Cohabiting, and Married
Families: A Case for Marriage?
Journal of Family Psychology
2004, Vol. 18, No. 1, 5–18

If family structure differences in child outcomes are primarily a function of relatively
stable characteristics that lead mothers to select into different family types, then marriage would not be likely to change the course of parenting and developmental outcomes for those individuals. If, however, the differences stem primarily from the consequences of marriage, then inducing parents to marry might result in improvements that could benefit children.


Research Questions
In the present study, we addressed three major questions:
(a) Are there differences among single-mother, cohabiting,
and married families in the mother–infant relationship,
quality of the home environment, or security of attachment
in the first 15 months of life? (b) Are there differences
among single-mother, cohabiting, and married families in
selection factors and potential mediators of marital status?
Do partner relationships differ for mothers in cohabiting and
married families? and (c) Which, if any, maternal and
family characteristics help explain family structure variations
in mother–child relationships and the quality of the
home environment?

Discussion
In this study, we sought to extend our understanding of
the relationship between family structure and child outcomes
by comparing married, cohabiting, and single-mother
families on the quality of the mother–infant relationship and
the home environment in the first 15 months of life. The
findings suggest that the relationship between mothers and
their infants does differ—and it differs on the basis of not
only single- versus two-parent family structure but also
marital status. Much, but not all, of the difference associated
with family structure is accounted for by selection factors:
maternal age, education, and ethnic group.
Married women and infants had more positive relationships
and better home environments than did their single or
cohabiting counterparts, whereas single and cohabiting families
did not differ. Married women behaved more positively
toward their infants, they created more positive home environments,
and their infants behaved more positively toward
them than was the case for either cohabiting or single
women at both times of measurement. Infants of married
women were also more likely to be securely attached than
were children of single women.

The findings of this study suggest that infants in cohabiting
families experience an early mother–child relationship
and home environment more like that in single-mother
families than that in married families. The cohabiting mothers
also were more similar to single mothers than to married
mothers on the selection variables, psychological adjustment,
and resources. Some advantage for cohabiting families
in comparison with single mothers was suggested by the
fact that the cohabiting women behaved more positively
toward their infants at 15 months and, although most aspects
of the home environment did not differ, a father’s presence
added some opportunities for adult contact. Cohabiting families
also had higher incomes than did single-mother families.
The patterns for cohabiting families were somewhat
surprising, especially because in this sample, 90% of the
cohabiting partners were the fathers of the children. Clearly,
the mere presence of both parents in the home does not lead
these families to resemble married families in many
respects.
 
  • #73
If the only contention is with child rearing, why not (and please don't jump on me, y'all) ban same-sex adoption, instead of same-sex unions altogether?

Russ, do you have any objection other than this ? And I'd love to see some of the Supreme Court arguments you mentioned.
 
Last edited:
  • #74
Gokul43201 said:
If the only contention is with child rearing, why not (and please don't jump on me, y'all) ban same-sex adoption, instead of same-sex unions altogether?

Well, that's what I've been implying, at least until we understand this situation better.
 
  • #76
Les, you know that I admire you, but hear me out. I was raised by my mother (my father worked in South America and we only saw him a few days a year). I am heterosexual, as are my two sisters and brother. I have raised my two girls pretty much alone, they are heterosexual. I don't believe that the absence of a mother or father has any influence on a child's sexuality.
 
  • #77
Here's a new article on same sex parents.

Teens With Same-Sex Parents Well-Adjusted

MONDAY, Nov. 15 (HealthDayNews) -- Adolescents who have two moms as parents are no different from teens growing up with a mother and a father, a new study finds.


On measures of psychosocial well-being, school functioning, and romantic relationships and behaviors, the teens with same-sex parents were as well adjusted as their peers with opposite-sex parents. The authors found very few differences between the two groups. A more important predictor of teens' psychological and social adjustment, they found, is the quality of the relationships they have with their parents.

"This is the first study that has looked at adolescents with same-sex parents in a national sample, and it shows clearly across a wide range of variables that they're doing pretty well," said study author Charlotte J. Patterson, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.

The research, published in the November issue of Child Development, draws data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, a school-based study of the health-related behaviors of kids in grades 7-12.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=97&ncid=97&e=7&u=/hsn/20041115/hl_hsn/teenswithsamesexparentswelladjusted [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #78
One should be very wary of what so-called sociologists/psychologists say about what sort of unions are "proper" for raising a child.

For example, at the beginnning of the 1900's there were quite a few psychologists who meant that to be born out of wedlock was inherently damaging for the child, and they had lots of evidence/correlations to back up this silly claim with.

There has been much confusion over whether a correlation is indicative of a cause/effect relationship, or merely the result of a common cause.

As Evo's post indicates, we have come a few steps closer towards identifying a proper cause/effect-relationship at the beginning of the 2000's:


"A more important predictor of teens' psychological and social adjustment, they found, is the quality of the relationships they have with their parents."

Although one may raise the objection as to what is the cause and what is the effect here (poor relationship quality might cause poor adjustment, but, conversely, poor adjustment may well deteriorate the relationship between parent&child), this correlation seems to me at least, to be of a more permanent character/lasting relevance than the relationship between social adjustment and some preconceived, narrow idea about what a "good rearing environment" should be.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
Back
Top