Listen to Derek, for he has met us both and knows what he's talking about.
This actually saddens me a bit. Someone with your intellect and wit should be passing on his genetic code.Gosh, I think I'm blushing.
** spoiler omitted **
LOL Then in order to avoid the apocalypse, nevermind.
I understand totaly. I assumed you had good reasons for not doing so.
My advice would be, never say never!
My fiance and I are in a similar boat...
So in other words I was right. An "unmarried" person, like a homosexual couple (currently), or a bunch of people living together as rooom mates. If they can proove that they lived together on the last day of the year, that oneof them is NOT also a dependant of the other, and that the one claiming head of household does infact pay more, the can claim Head of Household."Head of Household
You may be able to file as head of household if you meet all the following requirements.You are unmarried or "considered unmarried" on the last day of the year.
You paid more than half the cost of keeping up a home for the year.
A "qualifying person" lived with you in the home for more than half the year (except for temporary absences, such as school). However, if the "qualifying person" is your dependent parent, he or she does not have to live with you. See Special rule for parent , later, under Qualifying Person." IRS
The problem is with the Qualifying Person/Qualifying Child restrictions. Non-biological, non-adopted children/others do not qualify. If a Head of Household is forbidden to legally adopt the child, they cannot qualify.
I do think this is a corner case, (but I could be wrong), and I also DO agree this one is unequal/unfair.
It usually isn't something that comes up every year (or even more than a few times) in most families, but it does come up.
And as a parent, you understand how every little bit of money you can legally deduct on your taxes can be better used by you to support and better your family.
I was asked for examples of non-religious arguements and motivations against same sex marriages. Period. Thats it. Like I said, the only one I actually find as an issue is the economic one.Then I would be interested in your answer to Finn's question about why childless couples, like my wife and I, should be afforded the economic benefits and not homosexual couples.
And no, we are not waiting on it, we plan on never having children, besides the four-legged kind.
So I assume you have had a vasectomy and your wife has had a tubal ligation. If not, perhaps you are not as sure as you think.
People are derailing all over the place in this thread. So has anyone actually given a reason why there should be a discrimination between heterosexual couples and homosexuals not fueled by a religious agenda?
And no, we are not waiting on it, we plan on never having children, besides the four-legged kind.
But, but... you are wasting your lives! How can you find meaning and beauty in the world if not for children?!?
Sorry, had to jump on the chance to finally say that to someone else. My fiancée and I made the same decision, and I'm so sick of this reaction. :-P
But skipping to the serious stuff, I think your point is very good. It goes to show that economic considerations should not play the all and end all role in a discussion about legal rights. If what is just was to be equated to what is profitable, then slavery would still hold and no progress toward the equality of sexes would have been made.
|
So I assume you have had a vasectomy and your wife has had a tubal ligation. If not, perhaps you are not as sure as you think.Yes, because only those who mutilate their bodies are serious about it. :)
Well, to be honest, my daughter was an unplanned for yet totally awesome surprise. Sometimes that >1% does occur no matter how safe you are ;-)
|
So in other words I was right. An "unmarried" person, like a homosexual couple (currently), or a bunch of people living together as rooom mates. If they can proove that they lived together on the last day of the year, that oneof them is NOT also a dependant of the other, and that the one claiming head of household does infact pay more, the can claim Head of Household.
A "qualifying person" lived with you in the home for more than half the year (except for temporary absences, such as school). However, if the "qualifying person" is your dependent parent, he or she does not have to live with you. See Special rule for parent , later, under Qualifying Person." IRS
The problem is with the Qualifying Person/Qualifying Child restrictions. Non-biological, non-adopted children/others do not qualify. If a Head of Household is forbidden to legally adopt the child, they cannot qualify.
Um, the "unmarried" partner WOULD qualify, so yes, you can, unless the unqualifying child is also your partner.
So I assume you have had a vasectomy and your wife has had a tubal ligation. If not, perhaps you are not as sure as you think.Yes, because only those who mutilate their bodies are serious about it. :)
More that those that are willing to take permanent measures demonstrate that they are ultimately serious about it. If it is more, "We use the rhythm method and I wear condom." Then I have to question how seriously they take not having children. Sounds more like, "We are not planning on it, but hey if it happens, we'll deal with it then."
|
More that those that are willing to take permanent measures demonstrate that they are ultimately serious about it. If it is more, "We use the rhythm method and I wear condom." Then I have to question how seriously they take not having children. Sounds more like, "We are not planning on it, but hey if it happens, we'll deal with it then."
My wife is part of the .1% actually
I want to get snipped, but thinking about the procedure makes me queasy, and working it into the deployment schedule was difficult until now.
People are derailing all over the place in this thread. So has anyone actually given a reason why there should be a discrimination between heterosexual couples and homosexuals not fueled by a religious agenda?Nope. Isn't going to happen, either. There are none.
I don't think so either. Just making sure in case there was anyone out there who isn't just trying to toss red herrings to obfuscate their lack of reasoning.
More that those that are willing to take permanent measures demonstrate that they are ultimately serious about it. If it is more, "We use the rhythm method and I wear condom." Then I have to question how seriously they take not having children. Sounds more like, "We are not planning on it, but hey if it happens, we'll deal with it then."So I assume you have had a vasectomy and your wife has had a tubal ligation. If not, perhaps you are not as sure as you think.Yes, because only those who mutilate their bodies are serious about it. :)
*Opens a can of worms: "Well there always is abortion..."
*Hides behind a bomb shelter.
More that those that are willing to take permanent measures demonstrate that they are ultimately serious about it. If it is more, "We use the rhythm method and I wear condom." Then I have to question how seriously they take not having children. Sounds more like, "We are not planning on it, but hey if it happens, we'll deal with it then."So I assume you have had a vasectomy and your wife has had a tubal ligation. If not, perhaps you are not as sure as you think.Yes, because only those who mutilate their bodies are serious about it. :)*Opens a can of worms: "Well there is always abortion..."
*Hides behind a bomb shelter.
Well I figure that was covered in the bolded section. ;)
I don't think so either. Just making sure in case there was anyone out there who isn't just trying to toss red herrings to obfuscate their lack of reasoning.People are derailing all over the place in this thread. So has anyone actually given a reason why there should be a discrimination between heterosexual couples and homosexuals not fueled by a religious agenda?Nope. Isn't going to happen, either. There are none.
Currently, none of the five existing communist states recognize same-sex marriages, civil unions, or registered partnerships.I don't think so either. Just making sure in case there was anyone out there who isn't just trying to toss red herrings to obfuscate their lack of reasoning.People are derailing all over the place in this thread. So has anyone actually given a reason why there should be a discrimination between heterosexual couples and homosexuals not fueled by a religious agenda?Nope. Isn't going to happen, either. There are none.
Which begs the question of why there is a discrimination in the first place. You're going in circles saying that it should be because it exists.
|
|
Currently, none of the five existing communist states recognize same-sex marriages, civil unions, or registered partnerships.I don't think so either. Just making sure in case there was anyone out there who isn't just trying to toss red herrings to obfuscate their lack of reasoning.People are derailing all over the place in this thread. So has anyone actually given a reason why there should be a discrimination between heterosexual couples and homosexuals not fueled by a religious agenda?Nope. Isn't going to happen, either. There are none.
Good thing we don't live in a communist state then, huh? What, exactly, does that have to do with anything either Ion Raven or I posted?
You're reaching now, bub. If you think I'm a communist, you're even more dense that I think and haven't been paying much attention.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I gave you lists of reasons. You didn't agree with them, but that doesn't change the fact that they are there, just like there are religious reasons you also don't agree with.
It's already done.
You gave a list of nothing. "Reasons"? None were reasons, they were a bunch of b+$+#+## excuses. Nothing in that list is even arguably a "reason" to deny someone any rights. And the religious reasons, at least in our country, with our Constitution, are irrelevant. Religion has no place in policy in the United State. Period.
I gave you lists of reasons. You didn't agree with them, but that doesn't change the fact that they are there, just like there are religious reasons you also don't agree with.
It's already done.
You gave a list of misinformed suspicions of how you think allowing gay marriage will ruin the economy.
You didn't even address why there should be a discrimination in the first place.
EDIT: At least with the religious reasons, although I do not agree with them, they were valid reasons. However, religious reasons do not hold up to the constitution of the United States.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Re-read it again. He/She. Would. Not. Qualify.Um, the "unmarried" partner WOULD qualify, so yes, you can...The problem is with the Qualifying Person/Qualifying Child restrictions. Non-biological, non-adopted children/others do not qualify. If a Head of Household is forbidden to legally adopt the child, they cannot qualify.
...unless the unqualifying child is also your partner.
WTF?! Why would you even posit that? Did you intend to be offensive?
Family and Medical Leave: I would say it should be completely up to the companies to allow or not who they agree is an acceptable, and heterosexual couples can have this same issue. NOTE that it doesn't say that it is illegal to do so, it says that it is not required, and nor should it/can it be.
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
Again, without a Federally and state recognized union, and prohibition from same-sex couples from adopting, same-sex parents can be (and routinely are) denied FML benefits.
But hypothetically, if you, Beckett, worked for Slaad Industries, you'd find it totally acceptable for me, your employer, to deny you family and medical leave for your wife or children?
Immigration Law: Misleading. Heterosexual marrages, and in fact being a legal and biological parent does not automatically grant immigration rights or citizenship. There are cases where a married biological parent is either removed from or barred from reentering the country, fined, and also forced the pair to either split or migrate to the other partners country, just the same.
Yes, some cases with hetro marriages are denied those rights. But same-sex couples are even denied the right to petition for their same-sex partner to immigrate. And since immigration is a Federal issue, a same-sex marriage recognized as valid for the state of residence still does not qualify.
|
People are derailing all over the place in this thread. So has anyone actually given a reason why there should be a discrimination between heterosexual couples and homosexuals not fueled by a religious agenda?
Yeah, it was not supported by the California Constitution*
-1977 language was amended to clarify that marriage in CA was between a man and a woman
-In 2000 prop 22 cleaned up the 77 change in the California code
-2004, Gavin Newsom illegally issued marriage licenses to gay couples, later those marriages were nullified
-Prop 22 was challenged and overturned in 2008 by CA SC. This challenge arose from the 2004 illegal issuing of marriage licenses on behalf of Gavin Newsom
-In 2008 prop 8 was voted in as a change the CA Constitution to solidify the language and put it in Constitution vs Cali code
-In 2012 prop 8 ruled unconstitutional because a Mayor in Ca illegally issued licensees (who did not have the authority) and thus the right to marry (with no source of legitimacy being derived from the CA Constitution) trumps the CA Constitution change.
TL;DR version - Gay couples were given a right to marry (by a mayor) by a guy who didn't have the power or authority to do so, they then have their marriages overturned - it goes to the CA SC who says "Hey, you can't take a right away once it's given - even if that right was illegally is given by the village idiot".
Next stop is a likely appeal as Prop 8 heads to the SCOTUS
As it stands opponents of prop 8 are looking to put another ballot initiative out to repeal prop 8 but will bypass the 2012 election because they know the overwhelming minority democratic vote that comes out for BO will probably get their ballot initiative defeated (smartest move yet IMO). So they will have to wait for an off-year cycle to get it out to be voted on.
That is the long and short of it, sans emotional outrage and board warrior e-peen.
*The idiotic stance on this is that they are not being discriminated against. In effect a gay man or woman can marry and have the same rights as straight people, they just can't marry people of the same sex and get those rights. This all implying that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice vs. nature
Edit: As to the why - I have no idea. Because it was before and these laws are just a continuation/extension of what came before in the CA code?
|
Exactly what benefits/rights are being denied a homosexual couple without children that are given to a heterosexual legally married couple without kids, that can't be gotten otherwise?
Beckett--
I think a few others have adequately answered that there are rights presently denied to homosexual couples that are granted to heterosexual couple, that cannot be gotten otherwise.
If the governments (Federal and State) were both to grant civil unions, with all rights, duties, privileges, and responsibilities of marriage except the name, while continuing to grant marriages by that name to heterosexual couples, then the government still implies that one is better than the other, and "separate but equal" issues clearly apply.
I appreciate that you've brought up a lot of the counter-arguments people try to make. Those arguments exist, but I don't think any of those counter-arguments hold up as valid reasons to deny marriage benefits to homosexual couples while granting them to heterosexual couples. While I've pointed out that a case can be made to only give 'marriage' rights to couples with children, that would be Constitutionally acceptable and non-discriminatory in a legal sense, I do not advocate such an action (although it might make sense economically to pare back a lot of the extra benefits, tax and money-wise, that childless couples get that are not granted to single people). Even the "only couples with children should get benefits" positions cannot exclude all homosexual couples without being discriminatory, unless you restrict the benefits to biological parents raising their child together only.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I gave you lists of reasons. You didn't agree with them, but that doesn't change the fact that they are there, just like there are religious reasons you also don't agree with.
It's already done.
I've pointed out the errors of several of your reasons and you've pretty much hand-waived all my evidence. For example, you say that same-sex marriages will be a burden on the economy. I pointed out that this is then an argument for how all marriage is a burden on the economy. You have not proven how [X] number of marriages is good for the economy, but [X+1] or [X-1] marriages is bad for the economy.
You are also flat-out wrong in your analysis of immigration policy. After researching several of your points and seeing you were very wrong, I decided it wasn't further worth my effort.
All of your points apply to all marriages, not same-sex marriages.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Prop 22 was challenged and overturned in 2008 by CA SC. This challenge arose from the 2004 illegal issuing of marriage licenses on behalf of Gavin Newsom
Auxmalous--
A little issue you failed to mention in the California cases leading up to this:
The challenge to Prop 22 might have initially arisen over Gavin Newsom's action, but Prop 22 was overturned because it was illegally discriminatory, in singling out homosexual couples and denying them rights granted to heterosexual couples-- stating in effect, that Mayor Newsom's action should have been legal to begin with, but was in conflict with an invalid law, which the Court had to strike down-- not that Mayor Newsom had granted legitimate marriage licenses under then existing (but invalid) laws.
Then, marriages were legally granted for 6 months in California, until Prop 8 (heavily pushed by special interest groups, and passed by a bare majority-- not a 2/3 majority as usually required for Constitutional Amendments) in an election that, according to Aretas's numbers, got less than half of the State's citizen population to turn out for it.
I disagree with the specific theory the Court used to overturn Prop 8, but it does make lawyer sense because it's not based on the 2004 then-illegal granting of marriage licenses in San Francisco, but rather was based on the legal granting of marriage licenses following the strike-down of the discriminatory language in the California Code.
However, the position you're still not answering is the argument that prohibiting homosexual marriages is a direct violation of civil rights-- not because it was ever granted and then taken away, but because it's discriminatory to begin with.
Not sure what you mean by your italicized "It was idiotic to begin with..." because gay couples are being discriminated against: they cannot marry the partner of their choice. Stating that they still have the "same" right as heterosexual people to marry someone of the opposite sex is irrelevant, because that is not the partner of their choice, whereas it's been taken as a given that that is the sex of the partner a heterosexual would choose. Of course, if what you mean by it is to bring up the argument that homosexuality is just a lifestyle choice, I believe that argument has been proven wrong.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People are derailing all over the place in this thread. So has anyone actually given a reason why there should be a discrimination between heterosexual couples and homosexuals not fueled by a religious agenda?Wrote stuff about marriage based on a heterosexual couple
And still no reason why there is a discrimination between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple. What reasons are there to discriminate between the two in the first place?
The arguments being presented here may as well be justifying slavery before it was abolished. You know, economics, tradition, the fact that the law recognizes it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
*The idiotic stance on this is that they are not being discriminated against. In effect a gay man or woman can marry and have the same rights as straight people, they just can't marry people of the same sex and get those rights. This all implying that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice vs. natureAh, the choice argument. How I missed that particular load.
I didn't choose; I was chosen. One day Stephen Fry just showed up at my house, knocked me on the head, bundled me up into a lavender bag and carted me off to the induction ceremony. He was very polite about it. Let me take my glasses off and everything. Along the way he shared interesting trivia with me, which I thought was very kind and I reciprocated as best I could from within a lavender bag and having just suffered a blow to the head.
It was a very nice ceremony. It took place in France, where they invented gayness. I received the honor from Serena McKellan* himself. He nudged me and told me he was looking forward to this job the secret gay media conspiracy got him torturing Jesus.
*Ok...would you believe Lady Gaga? No, she was like seven at the time.
...would you believe Chris Colfer? No, he was five.
...Elton John?
Only international proletarian socialist revolution will free homosexuals, and indeed all of us, from the repressive fetters of bourgeois morality and the disfiguring trauma of monogamous, heterosexual family life.
Vive le Galt!
Currently, none of the five existing communist states recognize same-sex marriages, civil unions, or registered partnerships.I don't think so either. Just making sure in case there was anyone out there who isn't just trying to toss red herrings to obfuscate their lack of reasoning.People are derailing all over the place in this thread. So has anyone actually given a reason why there should be a discrimination between heterosexual couples and homosexuals not fueled by a religious agenda?Nope. Isn't going to happen, either. There are none.Good thing we don't live in a communist state then, huh? What, exactly, does that have to do with anything either Ion Raven or I posted?
You're reaching now, bub. If you think I'm a communist, you're even more dense that I think and haven't been paying much attention.
Let's see if I can connect the dots for you.
Claim: The only reason anyone has to be against same-sex marriages is because of religion.Fact: Most communist countries aren't religious and many are actively anti-religion.
Fact: Most communist countries don't recognize recognize same-sex marriages.
Conclusion: Some groups of people that are not religious are still unaccepting of same-sex marriage. Thus religion can't be the only reason people may be against same-sex marriage.
Now maybe those reasons may not be "legitimate" in our eyes, but the claim that the only reason to be against it is because of religion is factually false.
EDIT: And if you think Comrade Goblin's communist overthrow is likely to support same-sex couples, I think you'd be even more disappointed.
|
|
People are derailing all over the place in this thread. So has anyone actually given a reason why there should be a discrimination between heterosexual couples and homosexuals not fueled by a religious agenda?Wrote stuff about marriage based on a heterosexual couple
And still no reason why there is a discrimination between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple. What reasons are there to discriminate between the two in the first place?
The arguments being presented here may as well be justifying slavery before it was abolished. You know, economics, tradition, the fact that the law recognizes it.
You must have failed to read through:
Edit: As to the why - I have no idea. Because it was before and these laws are just a continuation/extension of what came before in the CA code?
Again, I have no idea. To the best of my knowledge religion is not cited in the CA Constitution, so maybe an unstated moral/family reason?
Keep in mind I'm just presenting, I didn't write the f$+*ing constitution or the law.
However, the position you're still not answering is the argument that prohibiting homosexual marriages is a direct violation of civil rights-- not because it was ever granted and then taken away, but because it's discriminatory to begin with.
Well I'm not defending that, just the fact that the CA Constitution and the fact that Marriage is a States vs Fed issue. Also I would go with precedent - States decide and have decided historically that specific class or race (more recent) are not being discriminated against, just the same-sex unions.
If the feds took it as an issue and allowed any kind of civil union with full rights then none of this would be an issue and rights wouldn't be dependent on the State you were married in, got sick or died in. I'm sure as time goes by and this is brought/challenged as a legitimate civil rights issue States are going to either cave or continue lock down their definition of marriage (as we see it happening) until the Feds get in on the scene.
Currently, none of the five existing communist states recognize same-sex marriages, civil unions, or registered partnerships.I don't think so either. Just making sure in case there was anyone out there who isn't just trying to toss red herrings to obfuscate their lack of reasoning.People are derailing all over the place in this thread. So has anyone actually given a reason why there should be a discrimination between heterosexual couples and homosexuals not fueled by a religious agenda?Nope. Isn't going to happen, either. There are none.Good thing we don't live in a communist state then, huh? What, exactly, does that have to do with anything either Ion Raven or I posted?
You're reaching now, bub. If you think I'm a communist, you're even more dense that I think and haven't been paying much attention.
Let's see if I can connect the dots for you.
Claim: The only reason anyone has to be against same-sex marriages is because of religion.
Fact: Most communist countries aren't religious and many are actively anti-religion.
Fact: Most communist countries don't recognize recognize same-sex marriages.
Conclusion: Some groups of people that are not religious are still unaccepting of same-sex marriage. Thus religion can't be the only reason people may be against same-sex marriage.Now maybe those reasons may not be "legitimate" in our eyes, but the claim that the only reason to be against it is because of religion is factually false.
EDIT: And if you think Comrade Goblin's communist overthrow is likely to support same-sex couples, I think you'd be even more disappointed.
You don't have to be religious to be bigoted or pander to the homophobic crowd.
I'm not saying that you have to be religious to be anti-gay, but we've heard all the religious reasons. Beside that, our constitution creates a separation between church and state. Religious reasons aren't valid in the US.Nobody has given any reason why same sex couples should be discriminated against that wouldn't also have supported slavery before its abolition.
If you had actually read my posts, you would see that I mention that religion is the victim here, being used as a wall to hide behind probably because there are people who wish to hide the fact that they are just homophobic...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've removed a lot of posts. This is a topic that gets a lot of people heated, but I implore you to be considerate of the person you're talking to. If you can't, don't post.
Flag it and move on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Beside that, our constitution creates a separation between church and state. Religious reasons aren't valid in the US.
That is a very crude and inaccurate statement. Religious reasons are perfectly fine for people in the US to decide things. If someone's religion teaches them that all people should be treated fairly, then they can use those religious reasons to support policies that treat people fairly. The constitution does not require people to shed their religion at the church/mosque/temple/whatever door. The constitutional issue is more about having the government come in and force religions to teach specific policies, not about forcing people to abandon their faith when discussing social policy. You can't have a state religion, but that doesn't stop individuals from using their own religious beliefs to decide what they can and can not support policy wise.
EDIT: Reminds me of people that think that Paizo shouldn't be able to delete their posts because they have the freedom of speech.
@thejeff: So the only way I can show that religion is not an influence on some people's oppression of same-sex couples is to find a society of humans who have never had a religion or mythology and that oppress same-sex couples. LOL, yeah that is a rational threshold to set. Reminds of David Chapelle's skit about "reasonable doubt" when it came to R. Kelly. LOL.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
***I am totally going to regret posting to a gay rights thread but here goes****
I am honestly curious why christianity/ islam/ judaism/ (insert religious group here) think that they own marriage? Mainly because every culture in the world had a version of marriage and very many of them had it without your religions influence. For example imperial China had marriage so did Japan, southern tribal Africa had marriage, the Mayans, and the Aztecs had marriage, Indonesian tribes had marriage, etc, etc, etc and all without your religions influence. So I ask again why does your church own and get to define marriage?
***I am pretty darn sure this will be ignored by any gay marriage detractors, but it is still a valid question*****
Vote no to gay marriage.
I've removed a lot of posts. This is a topic that gets a lot of people heated, but I implore you to be considerate of the person you're talking to. If you can't, don't post.
Flag it and move on.
I'm surprised that one reply from me was't deleted. I think I may have been a bit too aggressive with the "screw you" statement.
People are derailing all over the place in this thread. So has anyone actually given a reason why there should be a discrimination between heterosexual couples and homosexuals not fueled by a religious agenda?Nope. Isn't going to happen, either. There are none.
Your an aggressive proponent of gay marriage. Here are some reasons....
They’ve argued that denying them marriage is denying them the ability to have a loving commitment with another person. Frankly, that’s just not true. People love others and commit to others all the time—we just don’t always call it “marriage.”
Advocates often argue that they are being denied a civil right. There are two problems with this. First, laws have already been established defining certain conditions under which people may marry. The would-be spouse must be an adult, cannot already be married to another, cannot be closely related to the person he or she is marrying, and they must marry another human. In other words, restrictions have always existed. No one has ever been able to marry anyone simply because they loved them. Second, many civil rights leaders, including Rev. Jesse Jackson, have rejected the comparison between the fight for same-sex marriage and the fight for civil rights. As Jackson said, “Gays were never declared 3/5 human by the Constitution, and they never needed a Voting Rights Act.”
Others argue that it’s unfair that married couples have benefits others don’t. Well, again, there are reasons for that, and it’s tied to childrearing. But marriage is not a bundle of government benefits. It’s about something much bigger than that. If the goal is government benefits, then that should be the issue, not redefining marriage to accommodate the desires of some adults.
In fact, the historic moral precepts of Western civilization generally—and Christianity specifically—are based on that very question: What is best for people? And I believe that the reasons for restricting marriage are, indeed, tied to human well-being and the common good. In other words, it’s precisely because same-sex marriage is not in the best interests of society that we oppose it.
First, though, let’s be clear about what this issue is not about. This issue is not about whether homosexuals are equal citizens who deserve to be treated with dignity. They are, and they do.
The issue is about the public purpose of marriage. And, if that public purpose of marriage has served us well, can it—or should it—accommodate the desires of those espousing same-sex marriage and same-sex families as the social equivalent of natural marriage?
So, on every land mass, throughout human history, marriage between a man and a woman has been the social norm. There are simply no exceptions! And in each of those societies, the public purpose has centered on the well-being of children.
Remember what’s being proposed here: same-sex marriage advocates are asking all of us to commit our society and coming generations to an untested social experiment where gender—shown in the irreplaceable value of male and female—is not essential to the family. How do we know if this will be good for children, adults, and the community? No society has ever reared a generation of children in same-sex homes, so we can’t really know how it will affect children.
Paul Nathanson, a professor at McGill University in Canada and a practicing homosexual, says that “advocates of gay marriage have made no serious attempt to consider the possible harms, and object to those who want more time to assess the evidence from other periods or other cultures.”
In fact, though humanity has not considered homosexual marriage until very recently, there is a culture we can examine for understanding this issue. Scandinavian countries approved same-sex marriage about 10 years ago and the impact on marriage has been devastating.
Thousands of conclusive social science, medical, and psychological investigations published in hundreds of professional journals have shown that: children without fathers are half as likely to do well in and graduate from school; they are more likely to require professional attention for physical or emotional problems; they are at an elevated risk for physical abuse or death; they are less likely to develop empathy for others; they are less confident; and they are more likely to spend time in jail and have children out of wedlock. All things being equal, children raised apart from their fathers—even if that father is replaced by another loving parent figure—suffer serious declines in every important measure of well-being.
The public purpose of marriage is primarily to take children from childhood to healthy adulthood. Its purpose is legitimate. It is tied to human well-being and the common good … and it thrives when men and women join together to parent children.
Any time we intentionally remove an essential part of humanity from the family—be it male or female—we have a family that will fail to function as society and children need it to. If we allow this shift to occur, we will fail our children and coming generations.