Marriage Debate

[Ziggurat]

also, folks in favor of ssm argue for things like the ability of a ssm couple to have hospital visitation,

You don't need marriage for that. It's quite easy to provide for that contingency through a little something called medical power of attorney. Heck, you can give medical power of attorney to anyone you like - you can even do that with someone other than your spouse if you are already married. Most people just don't think about that before something bad happens, but the option already exists.

health coverage provided by one spouse for the other, etc.

This is a cost. Someone other than the couple ends up paying that cost. Legalizing SSM means that the state is mandating one group pay for benefits for another group. The state generally should only impose a cost on one group to pay benefits to a separate group if there is some secondary benefit for society as a whole, and NOT just to those receiving the primary benefit, which is sufficient to justify imposing that cost. For heterosexual couples, an obvious benefit to society as a whole comes through supporting procreation. There is no such benefit for SSM's. There may be OTHER benefits to society from supporting SSM's, but I haven't really seen an argument for why any such benefits warrant the cost. Which means that you don't actually have any direct answer to the most potent anti-SSM argument.

simple things afforded via the legal recognition of marriage.

It's funny you should use the term "afforded", because there is indeed a cost, an actual ECONOMIC cost, associated with some of the "simple" things you associate with marriage.

 

[pounce]

are you only issues financial then?

 

[thaiboxerken]

But that opinion is not shared universally

What opinion is?

, and those who feel differently (namely, that the state DOES have an interest in procreation) do not always feel that way because they are the hateful bigots you presume them to be.

It's probably because such "opinion" didn't come about until same-sex marriage was mentioned. Procreation isn't mentioned in any "defense of marriage" act or in most marriage vows and contracts.

It's ironic how incensed you are about a perceived bigotry, and yet you're so eager to assume the worst of others merely because they disagree with you. You're not exactly inspiring me with your enlightenment.

It's not a percieved bigotry. People that are against same-sex marriage are bigots.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

...
It's funny you should use the term "afforded", because there is indeed a cost, an actual ECONOMIC cost, associated with some of the "simple" things you associate with marriage.

As I posted, there is a projected saving to the taxpayer if legal ssm is allowed in the whole of the US. I posted the link to the Congressional Budget Report on the subject, and I have the pdf of the MIT study, which found the same savings for California. As soon as I find time to find it online and find the New Jersey Study I’ll post it.

Simply, to look at my loss as your gain is not the complete picture.

Besides, it’s not like gays aren’t tax-paying, health-insurance-paying citizens; it’s money from their families too that is taken and used to subsidize other’s. Why shouldn't they and their kids get the same share back?

 

[pounce]

i'd think the financial burden of accepting ssm is being exaggerated for the sake of this debate, as is the threat to the so called sanctity of marriage by allowing same sex couples to marry.

ps: an obvious solution for those who oppose it is to not do it. if you oppose ssm, don't marry someone of the same sex. other than that, i say suck it!

 

[Huntster]

Which relationship should the state have an interest, mead? I say neither.

So why do you insist that the state have authority to dictate, define, and regulate marriage?

 

[thaiboxerken]

So why do you insist that the state have authority to dictate, define, and regulate marriage?

That strawman isn't very subtle. I never insisted any of those things. However, as long as the state does do this, they should do so equally to all people, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

Try again,

Edited by tim: 

Sigh. Stop it, thaiboxerken. After nearly five years and 6,246 posts I would have thought you knew the rules....

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Because the possibility that people might become parents, whether or not that is their intention, creates unique problems for those people, and a legal institution is necessary that recognizes those problems. We call that institution "marriage".

Really? I thought we called that institution "parenting".

 

[NobbyNobbs]

That is my whole point. A man and woman committing to each other in the raising of children is what it's all about, and it has been so since the dawn of time.

Um...no.

In many species, the father (and often the mother) abandons the brood to survive on their own. I suspect Australopithecus (sp?) did something similar.

Later, as we started to become "civilized", extended families became common. You had aunts, grandmothers, sisters, and neighbors caring for the children as a group. This happened especially during the nomadic millenia.

A one-to-one committment for the purpose of raising children in a "nuclear" home is a fairly recent thing.

And I still maintain that the primary purpose of marriage is to commit to one person you love. Having children? That's the primary purpose of heterosexual sex. Don't confuse the two.

 

[Huntster]

...In many species, the father (and often the mother) abandons the brood to survive on their own. I suspect Australopithecus (sp?) did something similar....

I suppose you can look at a fragment of Australopithecus bone and confirm that?

And I still maintain that the primary purpose of marriage is to commit to one person you love. Having children? That's the primary purpose of heterosexual sex. Don't confuse the two.

Not having children. Raising them. It's a lifetime committment, and it requires both parents.

 

[Cleon]

I suppose you can look at a fragment of Australopithecus bone and confirm that?

No, what you can do is extrapolate from extant species of apes, the human species, and other primates. Much the same way you can look at a generation of cousins and figure out that if the majority--or better, vast majority--of them have red hair, chances are pretty good that their common ancestors (such as their great-great grandparents) were quite probably redheads.

Not having children. Raising them. It's a lifetime committment,

No it isn't. My Dad raised me, I live on my own, and he's still very much alive.

Have you not moved out of your parents' basement?

and it requires both parents.

Considering the number of kids raised successfully in single-parent homes, this is most assuredly not true.

 

[Meadmaker]

Really? I thought we called that institution "parenting".

"Parenting" is a verb of fairly recent origin. It is not an institution.

 

[Huntster]

No, what you can do is extrapolate from extant species of apes, the human species, and other primates. Much the same way you can look at a generation of cousins and figure out that if the majority--or better, vast majority--of them have red hair, chances are pretty good that their common ancestors (such as their great-great grandparents) were quite probably redheads.

Oh, I see.

And if their common ancestors (such as their great-great grandparents) were quite probably redheads, that means they abandoned their mates and offspring?

Not having children. Raising them. It's a lifetime committment

No it isn't. My Dad raised me, I live on my own, and he's still very much alive.

Have you not moved out of your parents' basement?

I joined the military at age 17 (had to have my parents signature to do it) and shipped off to Vietnam (at my request). I've lived across the globe from them almost ever since.

My Dad passed away a year or so ago. Several years ago, in a phone conversation, he told me that "kids are forever". As my adult children (away building their own lives) grow into adulthood, I understand exactly what Dad meant.

I suppose explaining won't do.

Considering the number of kids raised successfully in single-parent homes, this is most assuredly not true.

Considering the greater number of kids raised unsuccessfully in single-parent homes, this most assuredly shouldn't be denied.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Not having children. Raising them. It's a lifetime committment, and it requires both parents.

Yet, many people with only one parent still succeed.

 

[Huntster]

Yet, many people with only one parent still succeed.

I suppose it's asking to much to have you folks admit the ideal, isn't it?

 

[Terry]

I suppose it's asking to much to have you folks admit the ideal, isn't it?

If two parents are better than one, would three or four parents be even better?

 

[CP489]

Oh, I see.

And if their common ancestors (such as their great-great grandparents) were quite probably redheads, that means they abandoned their mates and offspring?

Yeah, I'm so dumbfounded by this I don't know what to say.

I joined the military at age 17 (had to have my parents signature to do it) and shipped off to Vietnam (at my request). I've lived across the globe from them almost ever since.

My Dad passed away a year or so ago. Several years ago, in a phone conversation, he told me that "kids are forever". As my adult children (away building their own lives) grow into adulthood, I understand exactly what Dad meant.

I suppose explaining won't do.

KIDS might be forever, but RAISING them is not. At some point in a parent's life the job of development is no longer their responsibility.

Considering the greater number of kids raised unsuccessfully in single-parent homes, this most assuredly shouldn't be denied.

Do you have any hard numbers here, or are you just assuming, and stereotyping to boot?

 

[Huntster]

If two parents are better than one, would three or four parents be even better?

Yup.

Grammas and Grampas living nearby are a great treat for children, and a big help to parents.

One parent as a full-time parent during the children's early years are an additional boost.

 

[Earthborn]

So why do you insist that the state have authority to dictate, define, and regulate marriage?

The state has the authority to dictate, define and regulate all government affairs, including what we call 'civil' or 'legal marriage'.

It's a lifetime committment, and it requires both parents.

No, it doesn't.

No, what you can do is extrapolate from extant species of apes, the human species, and other primates.

Still that does not support the claim. If we extrapolate from other primates, it appears most likely that Australopithecines cared for their young for quite a while, because that's what all primates do AFAIK.

 

[Huntster]

...KIDS might be forever, but RAISING them is not. At some point in a parent's life the job of development is no longer their responsibility....

A parent always has a duty to their child, if nothing else, with advice and lending an ear. Even advice on growing old is a big help.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Considering the greater number of kids raised unsuccessfully in single-parent homes, this most assuredly shouldn't be denied.

Do you have any hard numbers here, or are you just assuming, and stereotyping to boot?

You must be kidding. Do you have any doubt?

Just the basic wikipedia entry:

While many view single parents as being a modern phenomenon the percentage of single parents has remained relatively constant. For instance in 1900 13% of Canadian families were single parent ones; in 1996 the number was 14%. The major change is in cause. In 1900 most single parent families were the result of the death of a parent, while in 1996 they were usually caused by divorce.

Statistically, children in single parent homes fare worse than those with two parents. In the United States, family structure contributes to five characteristics of a child’s well being. These include lower birthrates and higher death rates among infants when there is just one parent. Also, the number of children ages 15-17 in school and in good health is much lower, and the number of children becoming pregnant at these ages is increasing. However, children raised in single parent homes do worse than those with caregivers who can give the child attention in all areas, including academic, emotional, and health.

Single parent homes are also associated with criminal activity in the U.S.A. Children from a single-parent household account for 72% of teenage murderers, 60% percent of people who commit rape crimes and are eleven times more likely to exhibit violent behavior