I define a reuben sandwich as corned beef, sauerkraut, swiss cheese and thousand island dressing on rye bread, grilled. Other people, may use pastrami instead of corned beef, or provolone for the swiss. I have heard of some that substitute cole slaw for the sauerkraut. My enjoyment of my reuben is not diminished by the knowledge that that somewhere out there some poor benighted fool is using cole slaw. How can same sex marriages hurt those in traditional arrangements?
Just arguing for the sake of argument coz this analogy is not even really applicable, if enough “fools” start using cole slaw, supply/demand* for sauerkraut may go down enough to make it more expensive for those who still prefer it.
*[sub]Assuming a single purpose for these products.[/sub]
Lotsa luck! 
As a bit of the side note, Jon Stewart had a fun bit the other night, where he looked at some of the blowhards bellowing about “The Sanctity of Marriage” and counted how many times each of them was divorced. Bob “defense of marriage” act Barr is working on his third wife right now
I’m afraid I don’t understand what you’re getting at. How would more marriages (albeit gay marriages) make the existing ones “more expensive”? What does that mean, anyway? Could you clarify?
Indeed, evidence so far seems to suggest that adopted kids raised by homosexuals aren’t any more likely to become homosexuals than they would with straight parents.
I don’t know what would happen with marriages? I was just working within the analogy. Like I said, the analogy doesn’t apply here.
“generally it is true that your chances of being a well-adjusted person go dramatically up if you have both a mother and a father involved in your upbringing.”
“Cite? Because this has been researched and found to be a fallacy.”
I’m curious. I’d like to see your cite for the claim that it’s a fallacy.
I’m not interested in anything but reading the source material which proves that two parent homes are not healthier environments.
Just to be fair, here’s a cite to start with so we don’t get hung up on that.
“Specifically, our analysis of the relationship between teenagers’ living arrangements and their behavioral outcomes shows that living with a single mother and her boyfriend is no better than living with a single mother. In many cases (particularly for whites and Hispanics), it is significantly worse. The most favorable outcomes we observe are for teenagers living with their biological parents who are married to each other.”
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/anf_b31.pdf
I’m not advocating the view, I just want to get the request for a cite out of the way. There’s the cite.
Now show me yours, cause I’ve not heard this claim before and I’m flat curious.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
“generally it is true that your chances of being a well-adjusted person go dramatically up if you have both a mother and a father involved in your upbringing.”
“Cite? Because this has been researched and found to be a fallacy.”
I’m curious. I’d like to see your cite for the claim that it’s a fallacy.
I’m not interested in anything but reading the source material which proves that two parent homes are not healthier environments.
Just to be fair, here’s a cite to start with so we don’t get hung up on that.
“Specifically, our analysis of the relationship between teenagers’ living arrangements and their behavioral outcomes shows that living with a single mother and her boyfriend is no better than living with a single mother. In many cases (particularly for whites and Hispanics), it is significantly worse. The most favorable outcomes we observe are for teenagers living with their biological parents who are married to each other.”
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/anf_b31.pdf
I’m not advocating the view, I just want to get the request for a cite out of the way. There’s the cite.
Now show me yours, cause I’ve not heard this claim before and I’m flat curious.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
whoopsy! Double Posty!
Generally speaking, as I’ve looked into this a little bit, the research I’ve read from various sources, seem to indicate the following:
A) Biological parents Married = lowest number of issues
B) One biological parent married to a non biological parent = next best
C) One biological parent living with another parent but not married = third best = One biologic parent on their own.
Mind you there are three factors to consider in reviewing the material…
- Economic iconditions
- The numbers for one group may be higher or lower than another for different ethnicities
- The numbers may be higher or lower, but not by that much.
Apparently, there is not that much gap between scenarios B & C, but there is more of a gap between scenarios C & A. with Factors 1 & 2 being from within the same ethnic group. Crossing ethnic boundaries may not be a good way to view the data, since we’re not trying to compare Hispanic Familes versus Black Familes, but rather Black (or Hispanic, or White) parenting and child development issues in scenarios A, B & C.
I’m not married, I have no children, and I don’t really care about gay marriages at all, it’s not on my radar as an issue. Don’t really have a dog in the fight, so to speak. I’m just curious about this.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
I’m curious as well. It is a common sense notion that a child is best off if raised by its mother and father. The claim that children do not need male and female role models is more incredible, requiring more rigorous evidence.
Broadly speaking, children are best off in a stable environment.
Also broadly speaking, a child which only has a mother and a father as possible adult role models is seriously socially deprived. Where are all the other relatives? Where are the schoolteachers, family friends, parents of friends, neighbours, and everyone else that the kid’s growing up with in this “role models” notion?
I’m awfully curious as to where people think these happily married heterosexual couples that are eager to raise all the kids in the world come from.
Sure, I’d love to have been raised by Ward and June, but reality was that I was raised by a hard-working loving single mom. These were not the ideal conditions for me to be raised in. Should the state have taken me away from my mother, and sent me to live with Ward and June? What if Ward and June weren’t available, should the state have put me in an institution?
The fact is, there are gay people out there who have kids. There always have been, there always will be. There may be additional difficulties associated with being the child of gay parents.
What good is it to deny these children the benefits and protections they get from having married parents?
Will the kids be better off if one of their parents, who they’ve lived with their whole lives, can’t get custody if their partner dies, and has to go into foster care? Will the kids be helped by having difficulty inheriting from their parents, because their relationship isn’t legally recognized?
I’m tired of all the arguments that amount to “Think of the children!” Believe me, when we’re arguing to get our marriages legally recognized, we are thinking of the children. We want them to be safe in case anything happens to us, well-provided for, and able to stay with the parents they love. We want them included in the shelter that the law provides for the children of everyone else.
Lilairen is right; what you’re denying these children by making it impossible for their parents to marry is the stability provided by a legal marriage. And then to go off and say that the kids are better off with married couples as parents, and so gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry… it’s an astonishingly vicious circular argument.
So, if the importance of having a child raised by two parents of opposite sexes is so all important that we must have a law limiting marriage to two people of opposite sexes, why have we made divorce easier in the past 30 years (I’m thinking of no-fault divorces)? Why don’t we make laws for heterosexual marriage stricter? If marriage between homosexuals should be illegal because it’s immoral, why do we allow adulterers to marry? For that matter, we allow people in jail for breaking US laws to marry and I have no doubt that it were made illegal to do, that would draw protests because it would constitute “cruel and unusual punishment”, yet this “cruel and unusual punishment” is something our society currently inflicts on homosexuals. A man who beats his spouse to death is legally permitted to remarry. A man who genuinely loves and respects another man is not allowed to.
It seems to me that if marriage must indeed be defended, marriage between homosexuals is pretty far down the list of things it must be defended against. Indeed, the desire of homosexuals to be legally married with all the rights and privileges thereof seems to me to “cruel and unusual punishment” and protect marriage. After all, if being married weren’t a good and desirable thing, why would they be fighting so hard for the privilege?
CJ
Well, duh! Because it would further our Satanic goal of toppling the oppressive capitalist Christian Leave-It-To-Beaver Republican dream of America, of course…
Why is the government involved in marriage anyway? If people want to keep the religious aspect of it, fine, but the state should stay out. Nowadays, marriage is a joke, people talk about having “starter marriages” assuming the first one won’t last. If things get a little rough, hey get a divorce. If I love someone and decide to make a commitment to her, then I will do it regardless of whether the government recognizes it or not.
If a gay couple want to have a full ceremony with all the trappings, it’s not going to affect me and my commitment one iota. I say more power to them. Life is short, if you find someone who makes you happy they should have the same rights as straights.
Because marriage is first and foremost a matter of property rights and inheritance and undertaken legal obligation, and one of the primary purposes of government is the assurance of smooth transfers of property and keeping people to stick to their legal contracts.
Isn’t there a study out there somewhere that found that children raised by a lesbian couple fare no worse than those raised by a married couple, and that their sons are actually less prone to getting into trouble? I seem to recall seeing that somewhere not long ago.
Perhaps we should restrict marriage to lesbians, since they seem to be the best at raising children. :rolleyes:
They also list numerous other studies done in the past, if you’d like more cites.
Esprix
This is not true. Such research does not allow for the shared genes between parent and child. Research has shown divorce to be a largely heritable trait, believe it or not.
Harris, Judith Rich Where Is the Child’s Environment? A Group Socialization Theory of Development. Psychological Review. 102(3):458-489, July 1995.
McGue, M., & Lykken, D. T. (1992). Genetic influence on risk of divorce. Psychological Science, 3, 368–373.
Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Genes and environment in personality development. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
McGue, M. (1993). From proteins to cognitions: The behavioral genetics of alcoholism. In R. Plomin & G. E. McClearn (Eds.), Nature, nurture, and psychology (pp. 244–268). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Block, J. H., Block, J., & Gjerde, P. F. (1986). The personality of children prior to divorce: A prospective study. Child Development, 57, 827–840.
Cherlin, A. J., Furstenberg, F. F., Chase-Lansdale, P. L., Kiernan, K. E., Robins, P. K., Morrison, D. R., & Teitler, J. O. (1991, June 7). Longitudinal studies of effects of divorce on children in Great Britain and the United States. Science, 252, 1386–1389.
Frick, P. J., & Jackson, Y. K. (1993). Family functioning and childhood antisocial behavior: Yet another reinterpretation. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 22, 410–419.
From a developmental psychology perspective, the relationship with each parent is an important template for future dyadic (one-on-one) relationships, however the most important thing to a child is simply that such a relationship exists. The worst thing a parent can do is completely neglect a child, not treat them badly (however most likely would not hold in cases of abuse, which have not been researched for ethical reasons). Whether that parent is heterosexual or homosexual has absolutely no relevance to the development of the child. Nor does whether they have a single parent of two parents, provided the child has enough opportunities for one-on-one interactions with other adults and children.
I couldn’t access your cite (site down?) but I assume that it falls into the trap of failing to make genetic controls. Behavioural genetics has demonstrated that the home itself has little to no impact on the development of personality, let alone whether a parent is heterosexual or homosexual (it accounts for 0-10% of personality, depending on which study you look at.) The idea that there is any detrimental effect on a child with homosexual parents is entirely ludicrous.