Kids are 'better' with a mother and a father? What source
are you citing? "In most ways, the accumulated research shows,
children of same-sex parents are not markedly different from those of
heterosexual parents. They show no increased incidence of psychiatric disorders,
are just as popular at school and have just as many friends. While girls raised
by lesbian mothers seem slightly more likely to have more sexual partners, and
boys slightly more likely to have fewer, than those raised by heterosexual
mothers, neither sex is more likely to suffer from gender confusion nor to
identify themselves as gay."'Coparent or Second-Parent
Adoption by Same-Sex Parents' - POLICY STATEMENT - PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No.
2 February 2002, pp. 339-340 - Pulished: 02/01/10- AMERICAN ACADEMY
OF PEDIATRICS (AAP)
@ruraljohnboy --"kids turn out better when raised in a stable
home environment with their biological mom and dad. "Whether or
not this is true, nobody is actually talking about taking kids away from
biological moms and dads -- so it's irrelevant.When gay couples
raise children, they are generally either adopting or using insemination or
surrogates -- or raising their own kids from a previous divorce. In all cases,
there **is no** "happy heterosexual home" for these kids, with or
without the gay couples' intervention. So the constant harping about
"biological moms and dads" is a red herring. These kids are NOT going to
be growing up with Mom and Dad, even if you ban gay marriage altogether.HOWEVER -- gay marriage does greatly encourages family stability. And
stability DOES help kids very much. So everyone who is concerned about kids
should be SUPPORTING gay marriage, not fighting against it.
People, take a step back and ask yourself why the government or even society
gets involved in marriage in the first place??? What does it provide for society
that we would want to incentivize it? Innumerable studies show without question
that kids turn out better when raised in a stable home environment with their
biological mom and dad. You can argue, you can hate, but those are the facts.
And that is why government defends marriage as being between a man and a woman.
That being said, there is NO reason to discriminate in regards to housing,
employment, etc. Love all, serve all.
"Was our government set up to take from successful workers, and give it
away?"Yes - it never had a time when where taxes paid and
benefits received were proportional.Worf, Your solution would drive
the US to third world status faster than juat about any other plan could. It
would be more devistating than a full out war.If trade with the US
became expensive (which the import\export taxes would do) you would see jobs dry
up faster than a rain drop on an Arizona summer afternoon. We are not the only
place in the world to build products. And we are not the only nation with smart
people. There are options, and placing a tax sufficient enought to fund just
our defense would drive import/export taxes through the roof.Business, and innovative people, would just do business elsewhere.
Was our government set up to take from successful workers, and give it away?Yes! Forget the benefits, and let's take care ourselves.If I was president, I'd announce an end to all benefits, and give the
people a year to make adjustments. That includes education. Government would
collect a set percentage from imports, and exports to run itself, defense, and
the postal department. No more income taxes. To collect import, and export taxes
would motivate leaders to wiser decisions.
It is not true that SCOTUS ruling against Proposition 8 would change the status
quo regarding gay marriage nationally, as some people believe. All it would do
is affirm that gay people in California who are already married have legitimate
marriages. California courts could then readopt legal gay marriage for the
future. The problem is that Proposition 8 takes away a right that
existed before it passed, depriving gay couples of equal protection under the
state's constitution. The same issue comes up in the Michigan
anti-affirmative action case. People of color are deprived of equal protection
because a law passed by referendum singled them out to lose a previously held
right. Success for the plaintiff in the DOMA case would also not
create new gay marriage laws. It would simply apply federal law to valid
homosexual as well as heterosexual marriages. Currently, those laws
discriminate in favor of heterosexuals.
@worfI do pay my way and I suspect part of yours but the point is that if
you extend certain benifits to only those that are married you cannot claim
anything less then marriage for gay couples is equal. Having said that I
am curious following you logic it seems you are arguing we should end all
benifits to married couples so they are not dependent. Is this what your are
spring street:Benefits come at the expense of others.Many are forced to pay for things they are against.Being
responsible citizens, we shouldn't be shouldn't be on our knees
begging for benefits. That's what gives the feds power over us.--Take some
pride in yourself, and earn what you get.
@ Maudine:Many heterosexuals don't get married because it
Hard times for Republicans....Another term with a Black Democrat
President,The sick and the poor have access to Healthcare [Obamacare IS
Constitutional], Loosing seats in the House and the Senate, We are
out of Iraq, Osama Bin Laden is dead, The Economy is out of the GOP
led tailspin, and beginning to recover, Universal Background checks may
soon become law, FoxNews, Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh are loosing
listeners and advertisers, and because of their lack of compromise (Civil
Unions or Domestic Partnerships), it looks like Gays will finally be given the
right to "marry".You can win the battles, and still
loose the war.Time to think of something you are FOR, rather
than just being the party of NO to everything.
Look at the case at the heart of the DOMA suit. It was brought by a lesbian
woman whose marriage was valid in the state of New York, but not recognized by
the federal government due to DOMA. When her spouse died, she was assessed
$300,000 plus dollars in estate taxes. Had she been in a heterosexual marriage
in the state of New York, her tax bill would have been zero.Does
that outcome equate to equal treatment under the law? I think not, and that is
the real issue at stake here.
While this is a national and political issue, religion should not be slapped in
the face and told to shut up. The voice of religion must be heard, just as the
"Pagan" voice is heard. Ultimately, though, from a legal standpoint,
there is not a strongly compelling argument against gay marriage. There is a
moral standpoint, yes. I know what leaders of various churches have said. While
it is true that a marriage between a man and a woman which instills virtues of
morality upon their children is the ideal that I and millions of other Americans
seek for, the reality is that there are many gay couples that will do a better
job keeping their children in school, keeping their children off welfare, and
perpetuating a decent America than many heterosexuals do.
I think that perhaps the right leaning middle could garner a great deal of
support by just conceding more privileges(which differ from rights, note) to
same gender couples. Allowing same gender marriage blows out the flame on a lot
of the more liberal policies of the left leaning faction of the US. Give gay
couples benefits and Obamacare on the whole may become less appealing to those
who vote in favor of the plan only because of what it will do for gay couples.
Surely there are some gays who on the whole are right leaning, yet feel that
they need enfranchisement of their privilege to marry, and so vote for the
m.g.: Prop 8 won't be overturned. States will retain rights. We will be
exactly where we were before the Supreme Court took this issue into
consideration. That's my take; of course, I could be wrong.
The thing I don't understand about what the Court seems to be doing is
this. A federal ban may be unconstitutional and therefore the states should
make the rules. But if the same court overturns Prop 8, then the states
don't have the ability to rule individually on this issue and will have to
adhere to federal guidelines. Let's face it, this thing is going to be
another Roe/Wade type blanket decision. Hard to believe on an issue like
marriage. Won't be long before getting a dog license is a federal issue.
i dont care one way or the other and this issue is just to take focus off more
important matters. budget, econemy, education, and jobs. let em have it stop the
missfocus of attention. just like abortion, it effects less people then the time
spent fighting about it, and divides us when we need to come together.
To "Pagan" Massachussetts also has one of the lowest marriage rates in
the US. Since Marriage and divorce rates are meausred in events per 1000
people, it is impossible for Massachusetts to have a higher divorce rate than
most other states. However, if you assume that all marriages performed in
Massachussetts remain there, and do some math, you find that they have about 50%
of all marriages ending in divorce.The sad thing is that in Utah
using the same assumptions, you have a higher marriage success rate than in
@worrfSo then by your own logic you admit that there are benifits that can
only be optained through marriage . Thanks for acknowledging why anything less
then marriage is not equal treatment under the law.
People like to cite and fabricate the 'destruction' of our country if
gay marriage is allowed. FYI? Massachusetts was the first state, to
allow gay marriage in 2004. Here is the factual result:
'After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest
state divorce rate...' - Bruce Wilson - AlterNet - 08/24/09Line:'Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest
divorce rate state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US divorce rate
was in 1940, prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.'From the National Center For Vital Statistics
Nature by no means adheres to heterosexual reproduction. And religious leaders
are just religious leaders; their title provides no more insight than mine. We
can add the dignity of federal benefits to gay marriages.
If you follow mother nature... then you should live in the forest,
without power, and avoid driving a car.
Mother nature thinks marriage should be one man and one woman.Pope
Francis think mother nature should be one man and one woman.Mormon
Prophet Monson thinks mother nature should be one man and one woman.I agree with mother nature, Pope Francis, and Prophet Monson
Even if you are lucky enough to have an employer that allows you to have your
Gay or Lesbian spouse on the insurance plan, that benefit which is just a normal
fact of life for heterosexual couples is in the eyes of the Federal Government
and the State of Utah a form of taxable income to Gay and Lesbian couples.Take two families identical in every way except the gender of the
parents and one family gets to enjoy insurance protection as a benefit while the
other has to pay exorbitant amounts of taxes on that same insurance policy.Just one of many examples of how no, Gay and Lesbian couples are NOT
treated equally and fairly already. No matter how much the radical right tries
to scream otherwise.
@ worf: Are you offering to give up the federal benefits you receive from
marriage? If not, your comment is kind of hypocritical don't you think?
Federal benefits have brought our people to their knees, and are destroying this
country. We've become a down trodden begging people qualifying for