Children fare better in traditional mom-dad families

[_Drifting]

I wonder how the world's population coped before marriage was invented?
Were there lots and lots of dysfunctional children running around or did 'nature find a way'?
(homage to Jurrassic Park)

The animal kingdom seems to cope reasonably well without having an institution called 'marriage'. And there are even examples within it where same sex couples raise offspring just as successfully as heterosexual animals.

The marriage arrangement worked well for centuries. Some would argue that this is evidence of a kind of success in cultural evolution. I can understand the concern, and I am not eager to call anyone who is concerned about rushing into gay marriage a homophobe. Changing a tradition of centuries, especially one tied so intimately to our biological and reproductive lives, is not something to take lightly.

Do you think that we were wrong as a society to change the tradition of male dominance and female subserviance including the traditional notion that women shouldn't be allowed to vote in a democracy? What about the tradition of having black people as slaves?

The point I'm making is that, with a small amount of hindsight, some traditions can be seen to be something well worth changing and as quickly as possible.

[_Kishkumen]

Do you think that we were wrong as a society to change the tradition of male dominance and female subserviance including the traditional notion that women shouldn't be allowed to vote in a democracy? What about the tradition of having black people as slaves?

The point I'm making is that, with a small amount of hindsight, some traditions can be seen to be something well worth changing and as quickly as possible.

Change happens. People adjust. I made my comments as a way of showing understanding toward the fearful. I understand the source of your passion and frustration too.

[_Eric]

You obviously didn't see that the APA's findings are now deemed questionable at best.

Obviously not. Please show me where that has been established.

http://mobile.slate.com/articles/health ... good_.html

...the study doesn’t document the failure of same-sex marriage. It documents the failure of the closeted, broken, and unstable households that preceded same-sex marriage...

Of the 73 respondents Regnerus classified as GF, 12—one of every six—“reported both a mother and a father having a same-sex relationship.”

What the study shows, then, is that kids from broken homes headed by gay people develop the same problems as kids from broken homes headed by straight people.

[_krose]

Consider that the problem social conservatives have with gay "marriage" is that it severs the link between marriage and procreation. It's not that two homosexual human beings are inherently incapable of nurturing a child. It's that children deserve their biological mother and their biological father.

If the real reason conservatives oppose marriage equality is concern for the children, their efforts are badly misdirected.

If their goal is for children to be raised only by their biological parents, they should not be wasting their time on laws that restrict who is allowed to call their relationships "marriage." They should be pushing for laws that prohibit divorce, adoption, single parenthood, and the ability to sever parental rights and custody.

Nothing in the recent spate of laws and constitutional amendments changes the ability of a gay or lesbian couple to have or adopt a child and raise it as their own. They can do that with or without "marriage."

Claiming that one thing is the most important issue, while lobbying hard for an action that doesn't do anything to affect that issue, is very strange behavior.

[_Fiannan]

I'm not going to read much on this thread. I'm only going to say that I read an article in the paper today about a 14-yr old boy who killed himself. He was bullied in school after telling classmates he was gay.

Does the Mormon Church realize they have only added to the hate with their actions?

Not sure one can blame the Church or its members. I knew an LDS teacher who was as conservative as you could imagine yet the great irony was that all the gay and bi kids went to him to discuss problems in their lives -- I guess to find someone who they knew would not personally judge them. I think there are many LDS people who are to the right of Vladimir Putin but do not come across holier-than-thou.

[_Fiannan]

How do you believe that same sex marriages would damage our social fabric and would be harmful to children?

I'm not sure that it would. But I think we should tread carefully. I am very concerned about the normalization of surrogate pregnancies, which I see as deeply symptomatic of the kind of damage I am talking about. If one woman contributes an egg, a second woman carries the fetus in her womb, and the child is raised by two men, who is its "mother"? How is a female child to understand what it means to be a mother?

I hope you see the direction of my concern. To me this is wrapped up in our policy for families generally, like the widespread and easy availability of no-fault divorce.

Well I suppose if you don't like bio-technology then don't use it.

[_LittleNipper]

If the real reason conservatives oppose marriage equality is concern for the children, their efforts are badly misdirected.

If their goal is for children to be raised only by their biological parents, they should not be wasting their time on laws that restrict who is allowed to call their relationships "marriage." They should be pushing for laws that prohibit divorce, adoption, single parenthood, and the ability to sever parental rights and custody.

Nothing in the recent spate of laws and constitutional amendments changes the ability of a gay or lesbian couple to have or adopt a child and raise it as their own. They can do that with or without "marriage."

We already had such laws, but the liberals destroyed them for greed, money and love of vice. And the unmarried and single were not able to adopt children at one time. Again, liberals changed all the laws through litigation and not by votes ----- not democracy nor the way of a republic.

[_Darth J]

If the real reason conservatives oppose marriage equality is concern for the children, their efforts are badly misdirected.

If their goal is for children to be raised only by their biological parents, they should not be wasting their time on laws that restrict who is allowed to call their relationships "marriage." They should be pushing for laws that prohibit divorce, adoption, single parenthood, and the ability to sever parental rights and custody.

Nothing in the recent spate of laws and constitutional amendments changes the ability of a gay or lesbian couple to have or adopt a child and raise it as their own. They can do that with or without "marriage."

We already had such laws, but the liberals destroyed them for greed, money and love of vice.

I'm sure you will not hesitate to support your assertion that back in the good old conservative days, there were laws that prohibited divorce, adoption, single parenthood, and the ability to sever parental rights and custody.

And the unmarried and single were not able to adopt children at one time. Again, liberals changed all the laws through litigation and not by votes ----- not democracy nor the way of a republic.

1. Don't let having any idea of what you're talking about get in the way of your telling the world how things are. It has in fact been legislative action that has allowed unmarried, single (excuse the redundancy) adults to adopt children. For example, in Utah:

Utah Code Ann. Section 78B-6-117

(1) A minor child may be adopted by an adult person, in accordance with the provisions and requirements of this section and this part.
(2) A child may be adopted by:
(a) adults who are legally married to each other in accordance with the laws of this state, including adoption by a stepparent; or
(b) subject to Subsection (4), any single adult, except as provided in Subsection (3).
(3) A child may not be adopted by a person who is cohabiting in a relationship that is not a legally valid and binding marriage under the laws of this state.
(4) In order to provide a child who is in the custody of the division with the most beneficial family structure, when a child in the custody of the division is placed for adoption, the division or child-placing agency shall place the child with a man and a woman who are married to each other, unless:
(a) there are no qualified married couples who:
(i) have applied to adopt a child;
(ii) are willing to adopt the child; and
(iii) are an appropriate placement for the child;
(b) the child is placed with a relative of the child;
(c) the child is placed with a person who has already developed a substantial relationship with the child;
(d) the child is placed with a person who:
(i) is selected by a parent or former parent of the child, if the parent or former parent consented to the adoption of the child; and
(ii) the parent or former parent described in Subsection (4)(d)(i):
(A) knew the person with whom the child is placed before the parent consented to the adoption; or
(B) became aware of the person with whom the child is placed through a source other than the division or the child-placing agency that assists with the adoption of the child; or
(e) it is in the best interests of the child to place the child with a single person.

2. The American republic is based on the common law tradition of England. That means, among other things, that courts creating law through decisions in cases is part of what the framers of the Constitution envisioned. It's why the 7th Amendment protects a person's right to a jury trial in cases at common law. There would not be any rights pertaining to common law if common law were antithetical to the Constitution. Judicial review is also an integral part of the republic that the Constitution set up. The branches of government are based on a system of checks and balances. Judicial review is a check on the power of the legislative branch. But please continue with your fascinating implication that Article III of the Constitution is unconstitutional.

[_Sophocles]

According to the logic in the OP, the following article is reason enough to keep interracial marriage illegal:

Are Interracial Marriages Really Less Stable?

We just don't have enough data to say one way or another, so better to err on the side of denying civil rights.

[_krose]

We already had such laws, but the liberals destroyed them for greed, money and love of vice.

I can sort of follow your meaning with the comment "love of vice." But I can't wait to see further details of how "liberals" got richer by changing adoption and divorce laws.

Please elucidate.