Equality of marriage and love

recedite wrote: »

Because 2 mothers or 2 fathers, instead of one of each.

You have just defined what SSM is. you have not said why it is less ideal.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You have just defined what SSM is. you have not said why it is less ideal.

Assuming the kids are likely to turn out heterosexual, then they are better off being reared in a heterosexual family unit.
Because kids need to be able to pick up life experience and family values from their parents. It is also important that they receive a broader education at school, in addition to the cultural values of their own family unit.

Similar issues can arise when white parents adopt black kids, or vice versa. Its not always ideal, as this guy with first hand experience can explain.

He also touches on another interesting issue - what happens if a wealthy white homosexual couple are considered first rate candidates to adopt an ethnic minority child, but a childless heterosexual couple from the same ethnic minority are downgraded because they have some of the "homophobic" views typical of the culture of the ethnic minority concerned?

stefanovich

I'm against gay marriage because I think it is not healthy for society.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

Similar issues can arise when white parents adopt black kids, or vice versa.

You must really, really miss the 1950s.

stefanovich wrote: »

I'm against gay marriage because I think it is not healthy for society.

Well, its an honestly held opinion, and everyone is entitled to hold their own opinion.
I'll just go off to get some popcorn now.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You must really, really miss the 1950s.

I bet you didn't even read it

recedite wrote: »

Assuming the kids are likely to turn out heterosexual, then they are better off being reared in a heterosexual family unit.
Because kids need to be able to pick up life experience and family values from their parents. It is also important that they receive a broader education at school, in addition to the cultural values of their own family unit.

Similar issues can arise when white parents adopt black kids, or vice versa. Its not always ideal, as this guy with first hand experience can explain.

He also touches on another interesting issue - what happens if a wealthy white homosexual couple are considered first rate candidates to adopt an ethnic minority child, but a childless heterosexual couple from the same ethnic minority are downgraded because they have some of the "homophobic" views typical of the culture of the ethnic minority concerned?

Your anecdote is fascinating. Any actual data? I remember having the same conversation at the time of the referendum and there was no data to suggest that heterosexual marriages were better in terms of childrens outcomes.

stefanovich

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Your anecdote is fascinating. Any actual data? I remember having the same conversation at the time of the referendum and there was no data to suggest that heterosexual marriages were better in terms of childrens outcomes.

Child starts life having to deal with the burden of other people's choices, specifically the stigma around homosexuality. I know we are all trying to rewrite the rules these days but there is still a lot of stigma...

Child is deprived of one or both of their biological parents.

stefanovich wrote: »

Child starts life having to deal with the burden of other people's choices, specifically the stigma around homosexuality. I know we are all trying to rewrite the rules these days but there is still a lot of stigma...

The issue is with the homophobes then. Look inside yourself to solve that problem in society.

stefanovich wrote: »

Child is deprived of one or both of their biological parents.

any actual data to back that up?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Any actual data? I remember having the same conversation at the time of the referendum and there was no data to suggest that heterosexual marriages were better in terms of childrens outcomes.

Where would the data come from?
Which countries have been rearing kids within homosexual marriages over a statistically significant period of time? Bearing in mind the human lifespan of 90 years or so.

recedite wrote: »

Where would the data come from?
Which countries have been rearing kids within homosexual marriages over a statistically significant period of time? Bearing in mind the human lifespan of 90 years or so.

we have had at least one generation of kids raised by homosexual couples. Is that not enough?

Cabaal

recedite wrote: »

Assuming the kids are likely to turn out heterosexual, then they are better off being reared in a heterosexual family unit.
Because kids need to be able to pick up life experience and family values from their parents. It is also important that they receive a broader education at school, in addition to the cultural values of their own family unit.

So should gay children be taken off of heterosexual parents in that case?
:rolleyes:

I know of plenty of heterosexual parents that have gay children, are you somehow suggesting that parents failed to raise their kids right and this is why they turned out gay?
Are you really going to go down that ignorant, stupid, bigoted rabbit hole?

Pherekydes

When you lose your spouse (death, separation) should your kids be taken into care?

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11113-014-9329-6

recedite wrote: »

Unique is the word I used.

Ah...
Separate but equal?

recedite wrote: »

Eh... no.

Um, yes.
Many options are available to same sex couples to produce children as they are to hetero couples.
Many hetero couples use surrogates or IVF or adoption. Some even choose not to have children. (gasp!) Do you argue that these couples should also not use the same definition of marriage? If not, why not?
If so, then your argument is plainly silly.

recedite wrote: »

No type of relationship guarantees full stability.

Do you have any evidence that shows same sex parents provide less stability?
If not (as you've pretty much already admitted) on what basis are you using to reach that conclusion?

recedite wrote: »

You mention hate a lot.

A lot of hate around.

recedite wrote: »

Where would the data come from?

Same place as studies like this:
https://journals.lww.com/jrnldbp/Abstract/2016/04000/Same_Sex_and_Different_Sex_Parent_Households_and.1.aspx

Conclusion: Children with female same-sex parents and different-sex parents demonstrated no differences in outcomes, despite female same-sex parents reporting more parenting stress. Future studies may reveal the sources of this parenting stress.

We conclude that there is a clear consensus in the social science literature indicating that American children living within same-sex parent households fare just, as well as those children residing within different-sex parent households over a wide array of well-being measures: academic performance, cognitive development, social development, psychological health, early sexual activity, and substance abuse.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x

Strengths typically associated with married mother‐father families appear to the same extent in families with 2 mothers and potentially in those with 2 fathers. Average differences favor women over men, but parenting skills are not dichotomous or exclusive. The gender of parents correlates in novel ways with parent‐child relationships but has minor significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1353%2Fdem.0.0112?LI=true

The results show that children of same-sex couples are as likely to make normal progress through school as the children of most other family structures. Heterosexual married couples are the family type whose children have the lowest rates of grade retention, but the advantage of heterosexual married couples is mostly due to their higher socioeconomic status.

And I like this one in particular.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jpc.13171

Conclusions
Stable dual parent families offer good outcomes for children with same‐sex attracted parents. Family processes are most important. This study does not support the assertion that children require both male and female parents, nor that biological relationships are essential to health and wellbeing. This study provides scientific data from a cross‐sectional Australian‐based study to describe and understand health determinants for children in family contexts that comprise same‐sex parent and all family contexts. It recommends equitable, stigma‐free family support.

And for extra bonus research:
https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

Overview: We identified 79 scholarly studies that met our criteria for adding to knowledge about the well-being of children with gay or lesbian parents. Of those studies, 75 concluded that children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than other children.
...
Taken together, this research forms an overwhelming scholarly consensus, based on over three decades of peer-reviewed research, that having a gay or lesbian parent does not harm children.

So again, what are you using to reach your conclusions?

Bannasidhe

Did I accidentally wake up in April 2015? :eek:

Huge smell of deja poo around here... :rolleyes:

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Because 2 mothers or 2 fathers, instead of one of each.

And what evidence do you have that the former is less ideal, i.e. that it leads to poorer outcomes for the children than the latter?

Its not all about money either. Gay couples typically have more money than straight ones, but money doesn't buy what a stable traditional family unit provides for kids.

Again do you have any references to support that assertion or is it is simply your own unsupported opinion?

So what's the bets?

"blah blah blah... Sinister Gay Liberal conspiracy controls all research"

Or

"My opinion is so infallible that it doesn't require evidence and outweighs the work of hundreds of dedicated researchers and their peer reviewed papers."

nozzferrahhtoo

stefanovich wrote: »

I know we are all trying to rewrite the rules these days but there is still a lot of stigma...

I am not so sure there is any more. Certainly not in our country. Perhaps in the US and Russia and so on? I think it varies massively from country to country so you might be better being specific.

stefanovich wrote: »

Child is deprived of one or both of their biological parents.

Again specifics here would be useful. What are you actually talking about? Many children who are up for adoption have ALREADY been removed from one or both biological parents. So homosexual marriage has nothing at all to do with that.

So how specifically are you seeing them being deprived here that is actually an affect of SSM and not something that occurred anyway?

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

The family union, with a mother and a father, still being the most ideal situation in which to rear a child, regardless of the many other (less ideal) kinds of situation out there.

Any evidence for that? All the studies I have seen show that homosexual couples do so just as well, and in some studies they even have slightly better results, than any other configuration. Studies showing the opposite seem to be very thin on the ground. I think I recall seeing ONE ever and the differences were minute to say the least.

recedite wrote: »

You can pretend to yourself that they are all equally good, but they are not. For example, single parents make the best of what they have. That is not a criticism of them, or a hateful comment against them.

Single parents have unique issues that I think makes it an unfair comparison, and an irrelevant one given the topic of this thread. I think we are more than aware children being brought up by a single parent have unique disadvantages that makes their situation less than ideal.

However the claim that children with 2 or more parents are somehow significantly better off if one is male and one is female and there is exactly 2 of them is pretty much entirely unsubstantiated. The "ideal" here is purely imaginary. We have a user on boards.ie for example who is in an MFF relationship and has two children and a third on the way. To say their situation is "ideal" is an understatement. They are amazing kids, hyper intelligent, much loved, deeply cared for, and ahead of the game by any measure I would use. Why is their situation less ideal in your imagination because they have three parents rather than two?

Not only is it imaginary I think it is entirely the wrong approach to evaluate the situation at all. Looking at it from the perspective of who the parents are or what the sexual contents of their underwear is, simply strikes me as the wrong narrative to be operating under.

recedite wrote: »

Because 2 mothers or 2 fathers, instead of one of each.

You are begging/dodging the question. You were asked "Why, specifically, is a same sex marriage a less ideal situation" and all you did was describe what a same sex marriage is. That does not answer the question at all. It rather contrives to dodge it.

That would be like me asking something such as "Why is a diet of almost exclusively vegetables better than a diet of almost exclusively fruit" and you just answering "because carrots".

recedite wrote: »

Assuming the kids are likely to turn out heterosexual, then they are better off being reared in a heterosexual family unit.

Why? That is an assertion with absolutely no substance validating or substantiating it.

Also how much, and what specifically, do you think parents play a role in the development of their child's sexuality? And then even more specifically what aspects of that interaction do you think are somehow specifically facilitated by the parents having the same sexuality as their child, and why?

recedite wrote: »

Because kids need to be able to pick up life experience and family values from their parents.

Which is not even remotely precluded in a same-sex scenario. Even a little bit.

Especially as, which you acknowledge yourself, parents are not the sole or even majority source of this in our society. Values are distilled by children from multiple sources as children grow. The classroom, extended family, siblings, peers, literature, media, direct experience and much more.

King Mob wrote: »

Also: Same-sex couples can and do bring children into the world...
Doesn't sound like you stance is all that well supported and based on something other than facts.
Hate perhaps?

King Mob wrote: »

Um, yes.
Many options are available to same sex couples to produce children as they are to hetero couples.
Many hetero couples use surrogates or IVF or adoption...
So again, what are you using to reach your conclusions?

Lets look at your examples given here, and fact-check them.

Adoption - brings a child into the world or "produces a child". No.
requires a biological male and a biological female? No.

IVF - brings a child into the world or "produces a child". Yes.
requires a biological male and a biological female? Yes.

Surrogacy - brings a child into the world or "produces a child". Yes.
requires a biological male and a biological female? Yes.

Factcheck Result; The gay couple can purchase a child, but cannot produce a child by themselves.
They can adopt a baby, but as most unwanted pregnancies are nowadays aborted, they will need to displace some other couple from the waiting list.

Which takes us back to another point raised. One that was neatly glossed over and ignored...

recedite wrote: »

Similar issues can arise when white parents adopt black kids, or vice versa. Its not always ideal, as this guy with first hand experience can explain.

He also touches on another interesting issue - what happens if a wealthy white homosexual couple are considered first rate candidates to adopt an ethnic minority child, but a childless heterosexual couple from the same ethnic minority are downgraded because they have some of the "homophobic" views typical of the culture of the ethnic minority concerned?

recedite wrote: »

Lets look at your examples given here, and fact-check them.

Ok, it doesn't meet your personal definition. Bully for you.

So are hetero couples who choose or require these options excluded from your definition of marriage?
If not, why not and how does that not invalidate your definition.

recedite wrote: »

They can adopt a baby, but as most unwanted pregnancies are nowadays aborted, they will need to displace some other couple from the waiting list.

What do you mean by displace?

Why are gay couples less worthy of consideration as adoption candidates than any other married couple?

recedite wrote: »

Which takes us back to another point raised. One that was neatly glossed over and ignored...

Lol. You ignore the vast majority of my post, particularly the requests for you to explain why you believe gay couples to be less than ideal and to provide evidence for your claim.
Also, a long string of peer reviewed studies that refute the idea.

Maybe go back and try that again before whining about your points being ignored?

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

Lets look at your examples given here, and fact-check them.

Adoption - brings a child into the world or "produces a child". No.
requires a biological male and a biological female? No.

IVF - brings a child into the world or "produces a child". Yes.
requires a biological male and a biological female? Yes.

Surrogacy - brings a child into the world or "produces a child". Yes.
requires a biological male and a biological female? Yes.

Factcheck Result; The gay couple can purchase a child, but cannot produce a child by themselves.
They can adopt a baby, but as most unwanted pregnancies are nowadays aborted, they will need to displace some other couple from the waiting list.

Which takes us back to another point raised. One that was neatly glossed over and ignored...

The ability to "produce a child" as you so prosaically put it is no indication of ability to raise a child.

If it were there would be no need for child protection services.

King Mob wrote: »

What do you mean by displace?
Why are gay couples less worthy of consideration as adoption candidates than any other married couple?

My meaning is fairly basic; In most countries (certainly in western countries) there are fewer babies available for adoption than there are prospective couples and single parents wanting to adopt them. Somebody has to go lower down on the list, whether that be due to socio-economic situation, age, ethnicity, sexuality, singleness, or whatever.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The ability to "produce a child" as you so prosaically put it is no indication of ability to raise a child.
If it were there would be no need for child protection services.

Indeed, and I never said otherwise.

But here's a question for you; Which set of parents should get priority for the adoption of a baby of African ethnicity, in this country. A wealthy white gay couple, or a poorer African couple who have expressed mildly homophobic views in the presence of the social worker? Which pair would you put higher on the waiting list?

recedite wrote: »

My meaning is fairly basic; In most countries (certainly in western countries) there are fewer babies available for adoption than there are prospective couples and single parents wanting to adopt them. Somebody has to go lower down on the list, whether that be due to socio-economic situation, age, ethnicity, sexuality, singleness, or whatever.

Ok, you are once again ignoring several points I made in my previous points.
This is a silly tactic and serves to only make your position seem all the weaker.

It's baffling you think it does otherwise.

But to address the above, I repeat the question you didn't answer:
In what way does a new gay married couple displace other potential adopters any more than a new hetero couple does?

Do you have any evidence that such a thing happens to an extent that is an issue or to an extent that necessitates denying gay couples equal rights?
Do you have any evidence that such a situation leads to bad outcomes?
Or are you just plucking it out of your head?

Are you going to go back and address the points you missed previously?
I can repeat them if you like.