Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Defense Of Marriage - A Hollow Argument  
User currently offlineBCAInfoSys From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1139 times:

OK guys.. you remember my rather inflammatory post concerning my paper about the Defense of Marriage, well here is the final product! I've got some pretty good feedback from others, and I thought you might find it interesting. Please let me know your thoughts.  Smile

Steve

***********************************

The ‘Defense of Marriage’ – A Hollow Argument


4/6/2006

Marriage: the premiere social institution which exists as the basic structure of western culture and family definition. Marriage remains today, as it has for thousands of years, the pinnacle of human relationships; the ultimate testament of love between two people. The institution of marriage however has not been stagnant; it is a dynamic, evolving structure which has changed throughout the eons to adapt to societal values. The debate over what defines a marriage is raging again today; about whether or not the benefits of marriage should be extended to same-sex couples. Given the spirit of equality that this country was founded on, the ideals to which we all aspire to; it is only right and proper that marriage should once again evolve to include same-sex couples. The moralistic “Defense of Marriage” counter-movement is not only morally-indefensible; it will ultimately fall to challenges in our justice system.

The history of marriage dates back to writings in the Old Testament and ancient Egypt, the oldest known writings which indicate of a sworn partnership between two people. For the first few thousand years, marriage represented virtual imprisonment for women in patriarchal societies. During these times, marriage was not so much a partnership as it was man’s dominion over women. Marriage represented a man “owning” his wife, as if she were property which existed solely for his benefit. It was not until the beginning of the twentieth century that this antiquated system began to change. Thanks to the Women’s Suffrage movement, marriage became less like a dictatorial system and more of a partnership.

At one point in the first half of the twentieth century, 40 states had laws on the books which prohibited the marriage of a person of Caucasian descent to “a person of color.” Interracial marriages were deemed to be “immoral and unnatural.” The origins of the Civil Rights Movement began with the 1948 California State Supreme Court ruling which declared the ban on interracial marriages to be unconstitutional. This was the first victory in the movement which climaxed with the 1967 US Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. (Sec. II, Par. 2)


So given the context of this historical evolution, is it not reasonable to extend the benefits of marriage once again to same-sex couples? The spirit of the 1967 ruling may well prove to be the legal basis for overturning prohibitions of same-sex marriages. Marriage existing as “one of the basic civil rights of man” should be extended to all persons, regardless of their chosen legal partner. The basic tenant of the ruling is that marriages cannot be prohibited on the basis of traits which are beyond a person’s control, such as race or sexual orientation. There are some religious groups which believe that sexual orientation is a choice, however this has been firmly refuted by the American Psychological Association (APA):

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed (Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality).


So to evaluate the merits of the “Defense of Marriage” arguments, we must first take a look at how “traditional” marriage is faring. Quite poorly is the simple answer. In the last 50 years, the percentage of married-couple households has plummeted from just under 80% to around 50%. At the same time, the number of households headed by unmarried heterosexual couples has skyrocketed, as illustrated by the following charts. In the twenty-five year period from 1977 – 2002, the number of opposite-sex unmarried couples jumped from 1 million all the way to 5 million. While divorce numbers seem to be leveling off, it is the rate of straight couples with children who cohabitate without ever marrying that is alarming.



To evaluate why “traditional” marriage is losing the position it once had, several factors need to be considered. First, marriage in yesteryear was often one of the only ways to ensure financial stability for women and children. However with ever-increasing opportunities for women as well as readily-available education options, women are not forced into marriage solely for financial stability. Second, technology has enabled information to be much more readily available, resulting in younger generations that are much better informed about marriage and what it entails before taking their vows. With better access to education and financial opportunities, many modern committed couples are electing to live together in domestic partnerships without entering into a marriage which many today view as “confining”.

So given the facts about traditional marriage, why the crusade to save it? In its current form, is marriage worth saving? Or will the institution of marriage be validated further by extending it to all loving partnerships, regardless of sexual orientation? What exactly is the “Defense of Marriage” campaign trying to defend marriage from? All of these logical questions seemingly go unanswered by this counter-movement.

Many of the arguments which fuel this discrimination are morally subjective and not universally accepted. However, there are many of their arguments which can be refuted logically without straying into the murky realm of religion and morality, which is ambiguous at best. The following paragraphs are an attempt to put to bed some of the myths surrounding same sex-couples.

“Homosexual partnerships don’t provide a good atmosphere for raising children.” This blatantly discriminatory statement was put to the test in the Hawaii State Supreme Court in Baehr v. Miike. In testimony from numerous witnesses for both the plaintiffs and the defense, the court heard testimony that same-sex partners make equal and in some case superior parents then traditional couples. In evaluations from the children’s teachers, the children raised by same sex parents showed no difference from the other children in regard to all relevant issues including intelligence, self-confidence, popularity, etc.

“If same-sex marriage is legalized, you’re setting up a slippery slope where the legalization of polygamy, bestiality, and all sorts of other deviant behavior is sure to follow.” The “slippery slope” argument is a common argument that has been used for years to prey on the natural fear of the unknown. It is a baseless argument which has no bearing. There has been absolutely no evidence of increased rates of “other deviant behavior” or efforts to legalize said behavior in the countries which have legalized same-sex marriage. Countries such as Canada, Holland, and France have extended the benefits and protections of marriage to all consenting, loving adults and the repercussions often foretold by religious groups having failed to materialize.

“Marriage shouldn’t be changed; it has lasted as it is for thousands of years.” First, marriage has not gone unchanged for thousands of years, it has changed several times to grow and change with society. As discussed previously, Women’s Suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement both fundamentally changed the nature of marriage; so why should homosexual equality be any different? Second, even if marriage had gone unchanged, to assert that it shouldn’t be changed just because it is tradition is a logical fallacy; argumentum ad antiquitatem. Just because the institution of marriage is old, does not mean it is perfect. War, bigotry, and slavery all have existed for thousands of years; do they need to be protected from change as well?

What should marriage really be about? Is marriage solely a financially and procreative association? Is it something that should be used to exclude others solely because of prejudice and fear of the unknown? No, that is not what marriage should be. Marriage should represent the ultimate commitment to another human being. Matrimony is a promise to be together through good and bad, enduring all trials, and sharing your love together for your lifetimes. Marriage should remain the pinnacle of our social structures, but it should do so all inclusively. All true love is equal and should be celebrated by all equally, not at the expense of certain groups. So we must ask ourselves, who really gains if the “Defense of Marriage” movement succeeds? The only ones who benefit are those close-minded individuals who wish to remain isolated in their own imagined self-righteousness. The repression of groups based solely on their sexual orientation serves only to profit those who would exclude homosexuals; namely fundamentalist religious organizations. Thus, it is only a manner of time before our society realizes that to subjugate entire classes of people based only on their sexual preference is not only utterly wrong, but completely contrary to the ideals on which our justice system has been built.


Works Cited


“Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.” 2004. American Psychology Association.
6 Apr. 2006 http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31

Loving v. Virginia, Case Number 388, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, 12 June 1967. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...etcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

Baehr v. Miike, Case Number 20371, Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii, 9 Dec. 1999. http://www.hawaii.gov/jud/20371.htm

Masci, David. “Future of Marriage: Is traditional matrimony going out of style?” CQ Researcher 14 (2004): 397-420.

Lipkin, Robert J. “The Harm of Same Sex Marriage: Real or Imagined?”
Widener Law Review 11 (2005): 277-308.

“Same-Sex Marriage: A Selective Bibliography of the Legal Literature.” Ed. Paul Axel-Lute. 31 Mar. 2006. 7 Apr. 2006 http://law-library.rutgers.edu/SSM.html

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1117 times:

Well penned. I didnt pick up anything that could have been factually wrong, the arguments are solid. I feel pretty much the same way. For all these folks out there who are against gay marriage, I have yet to hear a solid argument in favor of thier views. Most of it is utter discrimination and intolerance. Hell if gay folks want to get married, let them, also as a point, I would rather see a child raised by a same sex couple in a stable relationship than one with hetero parents who cant stand each other.

User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4344 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1109 times:

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 1):
I feel pretty much the same way. For all these folks out there who are against gay marriage, I have yet to hear a solid argument in favor of thier views.

That's probably the key right there - I have never heard, from anyone, one solid logical (religion and emotion aside) argument for discriminating against gay couples. If you want to oppose it because that's what your religious views say, fine, but be honest about it and admit that it's entirely a subjective view based on your beliefs, and has no factual backing.

Steve, good job.



"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineSTLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9336 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1102 times:

Oh, and just because I love this.

Back by popular demand!





Eternal darkness we all should dread. It's hard to party when you're dead.
User currently offlineBCAInfoSys From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1100 times:

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 1):
Hell if gay folks want to get married, let them

Heck yeah! As I've heard a few times, "let them get married and be as miserable as the rest of us!"  Wink

So here's a question I didn't resolve in my study. What happens if a same-sex couple adopts/parents a child but then they seperate; is the departing partner responsible for paying child support?

Kind of a murky legal issue I must say..

Steve


User currently offlineBushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1096 times:

Quoting BCAInfoSys (Reply 4):
So here's a question I didn't resolve in my study. What happens if a same-sex couple adopts/parents a child but then they seperate; is the departing partner responsible for paying child support?

In terms of court rulings etc. I dont know, but I would say that one of the partners would get custody, the other would pay child support. That makes sense to me, they should be treated the same as a hetero couple.


User currently offlineSTLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9336 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1091 times:

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 5):
In terms of court rulings etc. I dont know, but I would say that one of the partners would get custody, the other would pay child support. That makes sense to me, they should be treated the same as a hetero couple.

And when you have two dead beat dads instead of one, a coin toss is sufficient.



Eternal darkness we all should dread. It's hard to party when you're dead.
User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4344 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1086 times:

Quoting BCAInfoSys (Reply 4):
What happens if a same-sex couple adopts/parents a child but then they seperate; is the departing partner responsible for paying child support?

Right now, because normal rules & laws regarding parenting responsibilities don't apply, it is a legal mess. There is a high profile case going on back east, w/ both the VA and VT state courts involved and fighting over jurisdiction. Basically VA is saying since they don't recognize same-sex partnerhsips, the non-biological mother has no rights. VT disagrees and is trying to enforce visitation, which VA is ignoring. If same-sex marriage/civil union was recognized nationwide, then pretty much the same laws and child welfare rules would apply as to current straight marriages.



"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineRedngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 44
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1081 times:

The problem is that there is no biological drive for "marriage" -- only sexual intercourse. Neither biology nor law can quantify or qualify the love and moral ideals behind marriage. Marriage is a moral institution sanctioned by culture and religion; therefore culture and religion dictate the reasons for, bounds and privileges of marriage.

When secular governments began sanctioning non-religious marriages by officers of the court, "common law" marriage, and privileges of cohabitation, they opened the door for a change in the ideal of marriage that had been established by religious groups. That is the deepest root of today's debates.

What a big can of worms.  stirthepot 



Up, up and away!
User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4344 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1068 times:

Quoting Redngold (Reply 8):
Marriage is a moral institution sanctioned by culture and religion; therefore culture and religion dictate the reasons for, bounds and privileges of marriage.

Sorry Red - marriage was first and foremost about propagating the species. It was co-opted by the various religions specifically because it helped stabilize society, which worked very much in the religious leaders favor. But bottom line, even then, it was about creating new bodies. As Steve did a very good job of pointing out, times change, and so did marriage. As soon as the state and not the church became the guarantor of social stability, the church lost its authority over the temporal aspects of marriage. You'll find very few people that say the churches should be forced to accept or sanction same-sex marriage, but the state has no logical basis to discriminate.



"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineSleekjet From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2046 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1068 times:

Co-habiting adults...two people who haven't got the guts to make a commitment.


II Cor. 4:17-18
User currently offlineSTLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9336 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1065 times:

Quoting Sleekjet (Reply 10):
two people who haven't got the guts to make a commitment.

or two people that prefer to be individuals rather than succumb to conformity



Eternal darkness we all should dread. It's hard to party when you're dead.
User currently offlineLentigomaligna From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1053 times:

Quoting Sleekjet (Reply 10):
Co-habiting adults...two people who haven't got the guts to make a commitment.

...or people who don't need a piece of paper to be committed.


User currently offlineBCAInfoSys From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1026 times:

Hate to break it to you RaG, but the days of the Inquistion and Crusades are over. Matrimony has become a legal and societal function, more then it is about religion. Religious ceremonies are permitted at the wishes of the couple, exactly the same as civil ceremonies.

So let me understand this argument. You believe that marriage should not exist outside of religion? What about couples of differing religious beliefs, or those that aren't religious. Should they not be allowed to wed?

I had NO IDEA that civil ceremonies were opening Pandora's Box that released the evils of homosexuality, Richard Simmons, and Madeline Albright upon the world. What ever were we thinking when we seperated church and state? How dare we accept others of differing beliefs without prejudice? Heaven forbid we should want others to accept us just as we accept them; as fellow human beings.

You make me sick.


User currently offlineSean1234 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 411 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1015 times:

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 1):
. Hell if gay folks want to get married, let them, also as a point, I would rather see a child raised by a same sex couple in a stable relationship than one with hetero parents who cant stand each other.

If there is one component of marriage for gays that concerns me in some respect it is the right to have children. Indeed there are some awful hetero marriages and contrarily fine homosexual marriages, where a child would likely be better off in a homo marriage. On a comparative basis, however you want to define it-say two couples are equal in every respect except one is hetero and one homo, the hetero couple is better for a child.


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1011 times:

Quoting BCAInfoSys (Reply 13):
I had NO IDEA that civil ceremonies were opening Pandora's Box that released the evils of homosexuality

I dont think that homosexual marriage is evil and I believe that a form of civil union shall exist. But this countries laws are made on precedent, and once you remove the definitition of marriage as a legal union between two people of opposite sex, you can open a whole different can of worms.

Some mormons have already attempted to use these laws to legalize polygamy. There are others who try to use the same laws to legalize an incentuos union. You can certainly then attempt to remove age of consent laws. Once you start removing certain impediments to marriage, others impediments can be removed, after all, its precedent.

I think that most gay couples will find less oposition if instead they use the term of 'civil union', with the same rights that marriage provides other couples.


User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4344 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1001 times:

Quoting Sean1234 (Reply 14):
the hetero couple is better for a child.

On what basis? Every single study ever done says just there is no difference and no negative impact on the child. This goes back to my original post -sans emotion and religion, there is not one sustainable argument for denying marriage rights to same sex couples.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 15):
I think that most gay couples will find less oposition if instead they use the term of 'civil union'

And if the blacks had just been happy w/ those facilities 'reserved' for them, everything would have been just fine, you know, seperate but equal. . .

Now to be honest, I do think that civil unions are a good incremental step, but in the end, equal treatment means just that, not 'similar in everything but name, but equal.



"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineBCAInfoSys From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 997 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 15):
Some mormons have already attempted to use these laws to legalize polygamy. There are others who try to use the same laws to legalize an incestuous union. You can certainly then attempt to remove age of consent laws. Once you start removing certain impediments to marriage, others impediments can be removed, after all, its precedent.

OK, I'm sorry. But that's complete HORSE SHIT. I grew up in a mormon family; I hear this stuff all the time. Prove to me that incestuous or polygamous relationships are occurring because of same sex marriage. Show me one, single, unbiased source and maybe I'll start to consider that argument. Show me one state court ruling, one neutral study, or one article where this is happening.

As I stated in my paper, it is arguments like that which propagate BS such as this. There is no truth to this, it is merely fundamentalist "slippery slope" propaganda bullshit.

If you look at my paper, you will notice a reference to Baehr v. Miike, the case in Hawai'i. If you follow the link I provided in my works cited, you will see that the primary plaintiffs in this case were the Methodist, Mormon, and Catholic faiths. What does that tell you? I mean seriously, read that ruling and re-consider your position, please.


User currently offlineSean1234 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 411 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 979 times:

We are so fortunate to have Searpqx's expert opinion, given the fact he has seen "every single study." Not all of them evidently:

"Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts."

D. Fergusson et al., "Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?" Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (October 1999).


American Sociological Review in 2001, Dr. Judith Stacey, of the University of Southern California:
"The adolescent and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to have been more sexually adventurous and less chaste....in other words, once again, children (especially girls) raised by lesbians appear to depart from traditional gender-based norms, while children raised by heterosexual mothers appear to conform to them." In the same study, Dr. Stacey wrote that she and her co-author, Timothy J. Biblarz, "recognized the political dangers of pointing out that recent studies indicate that a higher proportion of children of lesbigay parents are themselves apt to engage in homosexual activity."


The Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry published a study of 4,000 high school students by Harvard Medical School, which found that "gay-lesbian-bisexual youth report disproportionate risk for a variety of health risk and problem behaviors ... [from] engag[ing] in twice the mean number of risk behaviors as did the overall population." (Garofalo, Robert, et al, "The Association Between Health Risk Behaviors and Sexual Orientation Among a School-based Sample of Adolescents," Pediatrics 101, no. 5, May 1998: 895-902.)


It is still not to say you can't get a good upbringing in a gay family though.


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 966 times:

Quoting BCAInfoSys (Reply 17):
As I stated in my paper, it is arguments like that which propagate BS such as this. There is no truth to this, it is merely fundamentalist "slippery slope" propaganda bullshit.

My choice for Mormons as an example was probably wrong, because obviously most Mormons would not support polygamy. But here are links regarding that 'slippery slope'.
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0039856.cfm
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/032006/03192006/176111
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301


User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4344 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 952 times:

Quoting Sean1234 (Reply 18):
We are so fortunate to have Searpqx's expert opinion, given the fact he has seen "every single study." Not all of them evidently:

Well thank you. I consider myself a highly motivated interested party, but having my efforts thought of as expert, especially by you, just makes my day. So let me share a little more 'expert' insight.

Of the three studies you site, the first and third deal with risks and behavior of gay/lesbian youth. In a quick search I couldn't find the full text of either study, but the summaries I did find, and the quotes you provide, say nothing about parenting. The studies deal with incidences of risk behaviors and mental health issues faced by GLBT youth as a whole (a group by the way, that has long been identified for being at higher risk, partially because of the social stigma they face)

On the 2nd, something didn't smell right, so I did some digging, and came up with these direct quotes from Dr. Stacey. Interestingly enough, if you read further down in the interview, she addresses the exact use you attempt to make of the study. I chose the following two because they most directly address the topic. The full article, including her response to those using this study to justify discrimination against gay/lesbian parents, is posted here:
(the first part is the question, the second her answer)
Florida and conservative activists everywhere argue that heterosexuals make better parents than gay men or lesbians. Is there anything in the body of social science research that supports this claim?

No, nothing at all. Significant, reliable social scientific evidence indicates that lesbian and gay parents are as fit, effective and successful as heterosexual parents. The research also shows that children of same-sex couples are as emotionally healthy and socially adjusted and at least as educationally and socially successful as children raised by heterosexual parents. No credible social science evidence supports Florida's claim.

and

There are other reviews and research out there that not only criticize the studies you cite but also come up with findings that actually say lesbians and gay men should not be parents. Why don't you include those studies in your review?

There is not a single, respectable social scientist conducting and publishing research in this area today who claims that gay and lesbian parents harm children. The dubious studies you mention were produced primarily by people who have been discredited and even expelled from the American Psychological Association (APA) and the American Sociological Association (ASA).

Now, having quoted all that, I will say that my statement that got your dander up was incorrect. I haven't read everything (though I would venture to say far more than you), and there are definitely 'studies' out there that claim homosexual families are poor environments for children. So I'll revise it to say, there is no credible (credible as defined by APA & ASA) study, researcher or evidence indicating that families headed by same-sex couples are a detriment to children, or that they are a less fit environment for child rearing.

So we get back to your original statement, other than personal belief, on what are you basing your claim that "the hetero couple is better for a child."



"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Absurdity Of 'the Defense Of Marriage' posted Fri Mar 3 2006 20:37:29 by BCAInfoSys
Define/Clarify/Quantify The "Sanctity Of Marriage" posted Sun Mar 20 2005 01:04:48 by ConcordeBoy
I Received Spam From The Department Of Defense posted Mon Jul 21 2003 16:49:25 by NoUFO
Life, Liberty, And The Pursuit Of Federal Dollars posted Thu Nov 30 2006 18:00:11 by RJdxer
Deciding The Rest Of My Life...... posted Tue Nov 28 2006 05:28:42 by Speedbird747BA
The Fun Of Driving? What? posted Tue Nov 21 2006 22:23:10 by Foppishbum
Anniversary Of The Fall Of The Berlin Wall posted Thu Nov 9 2006 22:03:00 by Speedbird747BA
The End Of "speed Limit"? posted Thu Nov 9 2006 01:19:35 by Palladium
The People Of Hazleton Versus The Federal Court posted Wed Nov 1 2006 17:49:25 by AerospaceFan
And The Winner Of Best Costume Goes To: posted Wed Nov 1 2006 13:55:05 by CV990A