Plognark

Phew...boy I hope so...that's a whole lotta crap for such a small paragraph

Edited to add:
I have heard that type of argument before actually, now that I think on it....but it's not particularly strang for haivng to play devil's advocate. Anyone with a decent understanding of biology can poke a big enough hole in it to sink that one.

BruceWane

By "government attempt" I meant an actual law on the books. I am well aware of the discrimination that goes on in custody battles. While I do not have direct experience in any gay or lesbian case, I do know all about the problems fathers face in gaining custody in Texas. While it is a parental/gender issue, this is pretty much off-topic, so I'll keep it to a summary.......

Brother's Ex-wife = convicted felon, was then busted for possession; posted bail and fled the state; so, as a fugitive from the law, she took my niece to live out-of-state without court consent or even notification. Returned, and was allowed to keep custody. Later convicted of welfare fraud. Still kept custody. Currently violates court ordered visitation schedule - child has not been seen by any member of my family for 4 years now. Attorney Generals office sees to it that child support payments reach th ex-wife, but refuses to divulge her location.

Lovely, ain't it?

scigirl

Do you have any evidence that expanding our definition of marriage will devalue the tradition of marriage, having kids, or my brother's stock shares? If so, please share.
Yes, research.

Who is mommy tonight? Lesbian parenting issues.
Sexual orientation of parents and Dutch family law.
Gay and lesbian adoptive and foster care placements: can they meet the needs of waiting children?
Family functioning in lesbian families created by donor insemination.
Can fertility service providers justify discrimination against lesbians?
Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents. A review of studies from 1978 to 2000.

Brad, I’m sorry but the belief that fundamentalist Christians want to ban gay marriage to protect the poor little innocent children. . . is absurd. Let me tell you about Colorado. We are the proud owners of Focus on the Family and we have elected FF supporters to the legislature and the governors office. What have they done to protect the kiddies: 1) They want to ban abortion, and they tried to ban sex education in schools, despite the studies which overwhelmingly show that it does work to reduce unwanted pregnancy and STDs in adolescents. This would lead to more babies born. 2) They want to ban gay marriage, and keep GLBTs from adopting children. 3) Last year they passed a bill to deny illegal and legal immigrants from access to Medicaid. This would include pregnant women.

So - let's review: The Colorado government who "claims" to be Christian wants to force an indigent Mexican woman to have a baby but refuses to pay for her prenatal care. Then if she wants to give it up for adoption, they won't allow gays and lesbians to adopt even though there is direct proof that they will be great parents. Moral? I think not.

And another thing: Brad, what would you do if a group of people organized and said that one of their major goals was to prevent lung cancer, yet they did absolutely nothing about smoking? Would you think that was a little odd? That perhaps they were missing the big picture?

Well that's how I feel every time the Religious Wrong says they are doing something to help the poor little children. Do you know what the leading cause of mental retardation is in the USA? Fetal alcohol syndrome. Do you know what the third leading cause of death in 11 year olds is? Suicide. The fourth leading cause of death of children from age 1 to age 14 is homicide. Child abuse is a strong risk factor for developing many mental illnesses. Type II diabetes is on the rise in kids these days, because we are letting them watch TV and eat all day without getting adequate exercise. So now more kids are going to go blind, lose their limbs, and die early of heart disease.

I don't see the outrage over any of these issues coming from the Religious Wrong. Why aren’t they demanding better mental health care for parents and children? Why aren’t they insisting we feed kids better and get them more exercise? Why aren’t they trying to beef up social services, and expand Medicaid? Why do they continue to endorse politicians who basically do the opposite – cut every program that could help children?

I wish I knew.

scigirl

JerryM

The main non-religious or non-ideological argument against same sex marriage that keeps coming up is the slippery slope. I maybe inviting criticism, but I think there is a degree of accuracy here. Not that the argument has any validity, but it does describe social evolution. Aversion to homosexuality is a manifestation of tribalism. It was a cultural taboo for the ancient, pre-scientific, Hebrew tribes. The priests who wrote the Bible incorporated these beliefs and practices into their scripture. I'm sure the religious prohibition is part of the OT just to reinforce a pre-existing taboo. But I think history shows that as society advances, especially in scientific understanding, and knowledge of human behavior, these ancient beliefs are questioned, and slowly begin to lose their grip. Just in the last 100 years or so, we can see how the old notions about inter-religious and inter-racial relationships have been challenged. Changing attitude about homosexuality is just the latest step in social evolution. Those who fear it call this a slippery slope. I think it's an inevitable process as society grows out of a pre-scientific state where old customs and doctrines are accepted without question. Put another way, I don't think that greater tolerance of homosexuality directly causes tolerance of incest or polygamy. But changing attitudes about all long-ingrained taboos is part of a continuous process of social evolution. And each change has to be examined on its own merits. In no way do I advocate "anything goes." There certainly are lines that should not be crossed, as others have mentioned. But we have to use unbiased judgement and as good scientific knowledge as we can get to see if society will be harmed by what we do, We should not rely on ancient beliefs and primitive superstitions.

Shake

Well, it's either that or we need to force those single parents to hurry up and get married. (that was sarcasm, btw)

Sadly though, I think the above options follow logically if we were to accept their argument that every child needs a mommy and a daddy. Never mind if daddy was killed in Iraq and mommy doesn't want to get married again. She'd better! (sarcasm again)

Toto

Sarcasm?? There is in fact a federal marriage initiative to convince poor people to do exactly that. Since statistics show that single motherhood is associated with poverty, the feds are going to provide counseling for these women so they can catch and keep a husband. :banghead:

Aravnah Ornan

Actual laws on the books do affect custody. Such laws are more likely decisional than statutory, but that doesn't make them any less enforceable or generally applicable. Some states have decisional law that strongly disfavors, or sometimes even flatly prohibits, the granting of custody to a homosexual parent.

Toto

Lou Sheldon is obsessed with gay agenda

Arizonaepu

Then there is the claim that poor--but working--women with children remain unmarried while living with a man who also works, do so to reap the 'benefits' of a lower income. And they keep having babies to increase the size of the welfare benefits.

villainess

Leaving aside the failings of the slippery slope argument in general, it strikes me as odd that the writer felt the need to throw in this particular objection between the usual incest and polyamory bogeymen. If two heterosexual widows want to marry, why the hell not? By nature, they're in a position to make an informed decision about how marriage and heterosexuality suited them. Is the author objecting to the idea that a marriage could be contracted for companionship and to simplify financial issues? If so, that's terribly ahistorical even from a Christian point of view. Or is he saying that a same sex marriage between heterosexuals is even worse than a marriage between homosexuals? How, and why? I suppose it might increase the chances of adultery, but that's about all I can think of.

I find his use of the illegitimacy rate in the Netherlands somewhat facile too, since babies born out of wedlock are not necessarily indicators of children raised without two concerned parents except in cultures where marriage is considered compulsory in a long-term relationship, which the article asserts is no longer the case in the Netherlands.