So let's vote on same sex marriage

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by jms62

I absolutely believe they raise their children better. They actually make the decision to have children becuase they want them. I believe they work harder because they have made that decision.

It's a fair point, but I just don't like the fact that all traditional married people are getting lumped in to the "accident baby" category.

My only question is how do the children of these couples deal with the eventual critics/teasing that will eventually come from other children (and very naive adults) along the way? I just wonder what the percentage is of these kids ending up psychological issues are.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

It's a fair point, but I just don't like the fact that all traditional married people are getting lumped in to the "accident baby" category.

My only question is how do the children of these couples deal with the eventual critics/teasing that will eventually come from other children (and very naive adults) along the way? I just wonder what the percentage is of these kids ending up psychological issues are.

Didn't mean all Matt the gist of my point is that nearly all of them are in the game becuase they want to be and go to great lengths to be. And you make a great point about psychological issues but then again how many children in general are going to have issues when they realize that there are really winners and losers in the world, no partcipation trophies and mommy and daddy can't fix all their problems.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by jms62

Didn't mean all Matt the gist of my point is that nearly all of them are in the game becuase they want to be and go to great lengths to be. And you make a great point about psychological issues but then again how many children in general are going to have issues when they realize that there are really winners and losers in the world, no partcipation trophies and mommy and daddy can't fix all their problems.

I remember when I was in grade school being embarrassed of my parents, but I think that's just all kids when they are young. I see it now with Little Matt and he's only 9. It's just a stage most kids go through, now throw in the gay wrench in and it probably magnifies it greatly. Like I said before, kids are ruthless and don't think before they speak (actually I know a lot of adults that do that too). They also gang up on the weak link and I'm afraid that some of these kids will constantly get picked on throughout their school years because they have 2 mothers or 2 fathers.

I have a gay cousin, her and her partner have a child. He's a cute kid, but I just wonder how he's going to be in the future.

I know most of these kids are loved greatly. Eventually one day down the road they will realize and appreciate the love and support their parents gave them, but I do worry about everything that happens in the middle of that time.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

It's a fair point, but I just don't like the fact that all traditional married people are getting lumped in to the "accident baby" category.

My only question is how do the children of these couples deal with the eventual critics/teasing that will eventually come from other children (and very naive adults) along the way? I just wonder what the percentage is of these kids ending up psychological issues are.

I'm not sure in today's age it is that bad. Probably would have been worse years ago.

I think actual gay kids get teased a lot at school, but I dont hear of it much with kids whose parents are gay.

Though the teasing reflects poorly on the parenting of the kids whose hetrosexual parents did not teach them it is wrong to make fun of people who may be different than you, or have a different family than you.. not on the kids being teased themselves.

I would bet money that the percentage of kids who have psychological issues with gay parents are right around the same percentage of kids who grow up in a traditional family. Now the gay children, I do think they have a higher percentage because they have to deal with the fact that some people dont respect them and are too young to understand that it is not their fault.

[Antitrust32]

When I was in highschool 11-14 years ago, I do not remember kids being teased because of gay parents or dead beat dads. One kid who had lesbian moms was one of the most popular kids in high school and now is a music industry mogul and making tons of money at like 27 years old. Though the few kids who you could tell were gay, or may not have been socially outgoing were certainly teased.

[Antitrust32]

but my parents like to tell me that if i want to have a kid to do it as a single parent because its not fair to raise a child in a same sex partnership.

to that, i tell them to go fucl< themselves.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

but my parents like to tell me that if i want to have a kid to do it as a single parent because its not fair to raise a child in a same sex partnership.

to that, i tell them to go fucl< themselves.

not fair? to whom?
besides, who the hell ever suggested life is fair? i think kids are better off finding out it's not, instead of having some of the parents these days who never say 'no', and shield their kids from any and every negative thing under the sun.
fat lot of good it's doing their kids. i remember at least three different times when we let someone go, that either mommy/daddy, and in one case, grandmommy called to demand we repent our error. how dare we let their precious angel darling go!
one of the parents was the step-dad, said he was 'going to sue'. yeah, cause the 5k to the lawyers retainer would go a lot further than putting that money into votech or something for the kid, so he wouldn't have to work in a warehouse making a pittance. or maybe he could learn to actually do his job, instead of doing half and going home?

and kids do best in a loving home without upheaval and concern about whether their family will remain as one. doesn't matter who the family is made up of.

[Antitrust32]

I think they believe it wouldnt be fair to them. Since they really dont want me to be gay and all.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I think they believe it wouldnt be fair to them. Since they really dont want me to be gay and all.

i would think that's a safe bet.

[Danzig]

saletan, lithwick and others on slate had a brief debate regarding marriage laws and states rights. in that article, i found this link:

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/09/e_3/singleton/


it all brings up some good points. but i thought the best question was 'we vote on civil rights?'

[Antitrust32]

here's a study that pretty much answers Math's question:

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-06-07/h...s?_s=PM:HEALTH

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

but my parents like to tell me that if i want to have a kid to do it as a single parent because its not fair to raise a child in a same sex partnership.

to that, i tell them to go fucl< themselves.

That's sad. I'm sorry. Like having another loving parent is a bad thing? Yikes.

If I were gay, I'd move to a same-sex marriage legal state - a more tolerant social environment - immediately. I've seen what happens to gay people here in conservative Kentucky. It makes their lives miserable professionally and personally, there is so much backwards jagoff around here.

[bigrun]

[Danzig]

^^

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

When I was in highschool 11-14 years ago, I do not remember kids being teased because of gay parents or dead beat dads. One kid who had lesbian moms was one of the most popular kids in high school and now is a music industry mogul and making tons of money at like 27 years old. Though the few kids who you could tell were gay, or may not have been socially outgoing were certainly teased.

You went to school in Queens?

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ic_issue_.html


Why Obama’s Words Didn’t Go Far Enough
Marriage equality is a federal constitutional right—not a state issue—and it’s time to start acting like it.
By Dahlia Lithwick and Sonja West

Posted Friday, May 11, 2012, at 7:10 PM ET

When President Obama announced his support of same-sex marriage, he talked broadly about “equality” and “fairness.” He spoke of “opposing discrimination against gays and lesbians” and making sure that nobody is treated as “less than full citizens when it comes to their legal rights.” It was a powerful moment—historic and emotional. In the Aaron Sorkin version, the orchestra would have soared at this point as the supporting cast members exchanged teary-eyed yet knowing nods.

But then President Obama described how these rights should be protected and the music stopped with a squawk. Same-sex marriage, he said, is not in fact a federal issue but should be left to the states. He praised as “a healthy process and a healthy debate” the current patchwork of state referenda, amendments, laws, and judicial opinions that our marriage federalism has produced. He said he didn’t want “to nationalize this issue” and added that the states are “working through this issue … all across the country.” Adam Serwer and the New York Times editorial page were quick to point out that this doesn’t represent much equality and fairness for Americans who live in, say, North Carolina, a state that just did away with both gay marriage and civil unions by referendum. Lyle Denniston goes further, suggesting that the president opposes the Defense of Marriage Act because it’s an attempt to federalize marriage.

The “marriage is a purely state issue” rhetoric has been around for some time. It’s become a familiar default argument, maybe because it sounds fair and feels safe. But having “evolved” this far on gay marriage, the time has come to evolve our own thinking on what is really at stake when we talk about marriage equality. We must embrace that this is a constitutional and not a democratic issue. Equality is not a popularity contest. This is hardly a radical argument. It’s Supreme Court doctrine: Our rights to be treated as equal and full citizens do not evaporate when we cross state lines. Rather there are certain essential liberties, even in the realm of marriage, we all enjoy regardless of our ZIP code.


a resounding to the bolded! it's why i'm somewhat pleased, but not completely so, with barrack and his half-stepping. and as i learned with pinochle, you should never, ever half-step. yet another instance where he's sort of leading, but not quite. he's the mclellan of his day. has plenty of arms and soldiers, but won't ever, ever make a concerted plan to attack.

[Honu]

I think Rup was just trying to make a correlation as to what people think is right and fair. Im sure the guy with 3 wives thinks he is just as right as someone who is gay when it comes to marriage and who are we to judge him if this is all between consenting adults.

[Danzig]

"Social Security, Medicaid, health care directives, estate planning, and immigration all hinge on marital status, which in turn hinges on the whim of the voters. The courts are just now wading into that morass and we won’t lie, it’s ugly out there.

The current system is unsustainable. Just as our country couldn’t go on with a mix of free states and slave states, we cannot continue with this jumble of equal marriage states and discriminatory states. Recognizing a federal constitutional right is the only, and the best, method to put this issue to rest."


also from the article, and a great point made.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Honu

I think Rup was just trying to make a correlation as to what people think is right and fair. Im sure the guy with 3 wives thinks he is just as right as someone who is gay when it comes to marriage and who are we to judge him if this is all between consenting adults.

except for the fact that homosexuality isn't illegal, while polygamy is. and like i said, when polygamy is legalized for some and not others, than it would apply in the argument regarding constitutionality. but unlike marriage, it's not allowed just for some.

when interracial marriages were being legalized, i wonder if rupe asked 'what if there were no black people?'

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Honu

I think Rup was just trying to make a correlation as to what people think is right and fair. Im sure the guy with 3 wives thinks he is just as right as someone who is gay when it comes to marriage and who are we to judge him if this is all between consenting adults.

I was listening to npr the other day, and the issue of trying to tie polygamy into the gay marriage discussion. Guy made some good points. As he said, the right for gays to marry is a question of civil rights. Polygamists however try to use freedom of religion as their bulwark. Its two completely different arguments.

After all, if straight marriage doesnt correlate with multiple spouses, why would gay marriage?

He also mentioned that in this argument, gays in many cases now hold marriage in higher esteem than most straight folks, i agree with that assessment. Many arguing against gay marriage mention the sanctity of marriage, how its best for children....but look atthe high divorce rate, which only goes higher when its your second marriage..or third, etc.