Nope. Vermont passed a “civil union” law, which as of July 1 will allow same-sex couples to enter into state-sanctioned unions which provide all of the state benefits of marriage. But it is not marriage. It is “civil union.” It does not allow united couples to access the more-than-1000 federal rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage.
Okay, I’ll bite: What exactly is marriage anyway?
Defining it religiously, legally, or individually/personally?
Civil Unions are strictly a legal issue, and grant the participants all of the same rights and responsibilities granted to opposite-sex couples in the state of Vermont (they do not grant any of the 1,000+ federal benefits, nor are they yet recognized by any other state).
Esprix
This definition shows that some cultural reworking will need to happen if SSMs are ever to be allowed. I myself define marriage to be a binding civil contract that is enforceable until (1) One of the signitaries dies or (2) It is dissolved by the very legal process of divorce. I myself don’t have much against them getting married, but I don’t want them adopting kids. There are plenty of straight couples that could give a more traditional home life, not exposing them to ridicule and possible discrimination.
This was one of the biggest points of contention in Vermont (and still is in the debate nationwide) - the actual word “marriage.” Most people seem to want to reserve the word for opposite-sex couples, but don’t seem to have much of a problem allowing same-sex couples equal treatment, but just not using that word (hence Vermont’s “civil unions.”) No doubt the word “marriage” is evolving, as most words do in the English language, and will eventually include a listing for a couple of any sort that is engaged in the legal practice of forming a binding union.
This topic has been covered quite extensively in other threads, but since most of them have passed to the nether regions of the 3rd page of GD topics, we could bring it up again.
If there are “plenty” of straight couples out there who want to adopt, then why is there a shortage of adoptive parents? I would think a loving home is a loving home, and that sure beats not having any parents at all.
Esprix
Why should otherwise qualified adoptive parents be penalized because people outside the family can’t control themselves?
Using his reasoning celebrities should be banned from having children. To listen to people like Carrie Fisher, it’s just hell being the child of someone famous. Hell, let’s keep politicians from breeding as well. I mean, look at the hell Chelsea Clinton went through (on a national level, even). There should be no mixed race children either. Or if you’re Jewish and live in the bible belt, you shouldn’t have kids (the sole Jewish kid in my class got hell because of his “difference”). Poor people shouldn’t have kids either. Kids get put down for wearing thrift shop clothing (well they did when I was a kid, now it’s trendy).
It sounds like a good plan. In order to achieve a perfect society, we should only let racially “pure”, athletic, middle class, trendy people breed. Oh wait, wasn’t that tried already?
I can see Derleth’s reasoning. He wants to cushion children from the bad stuff of the world. However, is it better to hide our eyes to what is bad in the world or try to combat it?
Yes, the children of gay people are an easy target of a lot of peer abuse. However, this society will never be healthy if it is allowed to harbor a hate. I’m not advocating that religions change their their religious views, just to drop the strong rhetoric that homosexuality is the root of all evil. The majority, for religious reasons, has many children who they disapprove of (eg. children of unmarried parents, atheists, and non-Christians). Historically these children were the easy targets of abuse, but as the society grew and became more inclusive that abuse eased or now skulks in the shadows. It is entirely possible for this society to ease it’s views on gays and for the gay-bashing to diminish.
If people would teach their children to respect others, then there will be no reason why gays shouldn’t raise children.
I’m a pretty easy-going person. If it doesn’t hurt me, doesn’t hurt anyone else, I’ve got nothing against it. But gays adopting kids hurts the kids, it hurts the community when the kids grow up as social outcasts (Eric Harris + Dylan Kleibold come to mind. They had straight parents, but they were still outcasts.), and it hurts the nation when laws get passed that are more dangerous than the crimes themselves. We can fight hate. We can fight ignorance. We can’t fight human nature.
I think we should stop politicians from breeding:)
All of the research I’ve seen indicates otherwise. Some of those studies include:
Bailey, J.M., Bobrow, D., Wolfe, M., & Mikach, S. (1995). Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers. Developmental Psychology, 31, 124-129.
Bigner, J.J., & Jacobsen, R.B. (1989). The value of children to gay and heterosexual fathers. Journal of Homosexuality, 18 (1/2), 163-172.
Bigner, J.J., & Jacobsen, R.B. (1989). Parenting behaviors of homosexual and heterosexual fathers. Journal of Homosexuality, 18(1/2), 173-186.
Bigner, J.J., & Jacobsen, R.B. (1992). Adult responses to child behavior and attitudes toward fathering: Gay and nongay fathers. Journal of Homosexuality, 23(3), 99-112.
Flaks, D. K., Ficher I., Masterpasqua, F., & Joseph, G. (1995). Lesbians choosing motherhood. A comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual parents and their children. Developmental Psychology, 31, 105-114…
Golombok, S., Spencer, A., & Rutter, M. (1983). Children in lesbian and single-parent households: Psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24, 551-572.
Green, R. (1978). Sexual identity of 37 children raised by homosexual or transsexual parents. American Journal of Psychiatry, 135, 692-697.
Green, R., Mandel, J. B., Hotvedt, M. E., Gray, J., & Smith, L. (1986). Lesbian mothers and their children: A comparison with solo parent heterosexual mothers and their children. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 167-184.
Hoeffer, B. (1981). Children’s acquisition of sex-role behavior in lesbian-mother families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51, 536-544.
Hotvedt, M. E., & Mandel, J. B. (1982). Children of lesbian mothers. In W. Paul, J.D. Weinrich, J. Gonsiorek, & M. Hotvedt (Eds.). Homosexuality, social psychological and biological issues (pp. 275-285). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Huggins, S. L. (1989). A comparative study of self-esteem of adolescent children of divorced lesbian mothers and divorced heterosexual mothers. Journal of Homosexuality, 18 (1/2), 123-135.
Kirkpatrick, M., Smith, C., & Roy, R. (1981). Lesbian mothers and their children: A comparative survey. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51, 545-551.
You’re arguing against gay parenting, and you cite two str8 mass murderers with str8 parents as a reason why?
No idea what this means.
Hate and ignorance aren’t part of human nature?
Just in case.
Testing 1, 2, 3
If this goes through, I’ll try posting again.
**
I’m a pretty easy-going person. If it doesn’t hurt me, doesn’t hurt anyone else, I’ve got nothing against it.
**
Well, already you are demonstrating an attitude that many will argue does not fit the typical human behavior. You are willing to allow homosexuals to exist and be themselves with no strong reaction on your point. Is that human nature or did you learn to treat others civilly?
Personally, I feel that the way I treat others is directly caused by my parents. Likewise, a racist is usually a reflection of his parents’ attitude. We used to segregate the races because society did not want to change an attitude that was deemed as a part of human nature. Why put black children in white schools? They only be bashed and insulted.
However, it can be argued that a segregated society is not a healthy society. At least, not for a significant segment of that society. Therefore, we did away with segregation. We continue to combat racism because we recognize that it is a learned behavior.
Homphobia can be treated the same way.
However, this is kind of a moot point for me. If I ever get lucky enough to find a life partner, it’s likely that we will have the children naturally through artificial insemination. People can argue that it’s selfish for me to have a child who will suffer stress. Of course, my point of view is that it’s selfih for others to put my child through that stress.
Or, if we do adopt a child, I have often thought that I’d rather adopt a “hard to place” child. Newborns seem to have no trouble getting placed, so it’s probably not going to make a difference to them whether I can adopt or not. However, there are plenty of kids with disabilities, who are too old, who have behavioral problems who are at a greater disadvantage by being wards of the state than by having gay parents. Yeah, sure there are plenty of heterosexual couples to adopt. More than enough, in fact. However, there isn’t enough willing to adopt these children. I would hope the state would be grateful for any competent, loving set of parents they could find.
I’ll quit Catholicism if they go against srcripture, and endorse a man laying with a man.
It’s not going to get legalized in the US, sorry Esprix. Vermont is the one exception, but it only will set off a backlash against the gays. Look at all the premptive legislation already on the books, protecting REAL marriage.
Quit trying to push YOUR definition of marriage down the majority’s throats.
Yeah, look at all the pre-emptive legislation, and yet you still manage to destroy close to half of your marriages without any help from us. You’ve had your chance at trashing the institution; maybe it’s time you let someone else have a turn.
**
I’ll quit Catholicism if they go against srcripture, and endorse a man laying with a man.
**
Are you aware that whether or not the government offers civil unions to gays, that it will not affect the Catholic church?
Say, pashley, weren’t you banned?
Well, I don’t think that’s going to happen, and nor do I expect it to, but I doubt they’d miss you much anyway.
Actually, it’s people with your kind of attitude that would cause a “backlash.” We seem to be doing just fine, in and out of Vermont. And legally, the experts all disagree with you - they say DOMA is unconstitutional, and will be struck down. So unless you recently got a degree in constitutional law, I’m going to take their word on it.
I didn’t have to push anything anywhere in Vermont, where the majority was in favor of civil unions - that’s why it passed.
No need to be bitter, pash - you can keep espousing your rhetoric until you’re blue in the face. Doesn’t seem to make much difference, but it seems to make you happy. 
Esprix
Yes, he was, and now he is again. Not bad–about two hours from post to re-banning. I wonder if we’ll see “Apologist” next…
Oh, dear. You should see the e-mail he sent me - somebody’s shoes are a little too tight these days, and they’re making someone a wee bit cranky. :rolleyes:
Esprix
**
Oh, dear. You should see the e-mail he sent me - somebody’s shoes are a little too tight these days, and they’re making someone a wee bit cranky. :rolleyes:
Esprix
**
Oooh, can I make guesses as to what he said? Did it involve the terms “agenda”, “propaganda”, “brain-washing” or “censorship”?
He sent it to me too. It’s called “Fuck you” and it just gets better from there.