Why do gays want to call their relationship a "marriage"?

[MrDibble]

@cornopean

a two parent, different-sex, intact family is what is best for the child.

Prove it.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@cornopean

No…because we are talking about what is normal and legal. Of course, children are raised in single-parent households as a result of tragedy and brokeness. But that is not something we want to normalize.

Shouldn’t you be crusading against the adoption of children by both heterosexual and homosexual singles, then? Because you don’t have to be married to adopt.

[boytyperanma]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

But even in the 1980s we let people get married even if they couldn’t reproduce. Sometimes we even insisted they be unable to reproduce.

That’s why it has to be an alternative reality. He is advocating with facts that never existed for a time that never was.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

But even in the 1980s we let people get married even if they couldn’t reproduce. Sometimes we even insisted they be unable to reproduce.

Indeed. Utah, Illinois and Arizona have infertility (or presumed infertility) as a requirement for first-cousin marriage. If cornopean is okay with this, his argument fails immediately.

[DrFidelius]

Cornopean , can I ask you a question?

Are you married?

[andros]

@Bryan_Ekers

Indeed. Utah, Illinois and Arizona have infertility (or presumed infertility) as a requirement for first-cousin marriage. If cornopean is okay with this, his argument fails immediately.

I don’t know about that, and I don’t think the argument fails automatically because of the existence of infertile hetero couples. I guess he’s arguing, like many do, that it’s the model that’s important; that society is best served when we support and endorse the ideal of heterosexual, monogamous, and lifetime marriage for the ultimate goal of procreation and raising children.

If that is indeed his argument, then I wouldn’t say that the existence of non-procreative marriages automatically kill the argument; provided they remain heterosexual (and, presumably, monogamous and lifetime) they still hold up the ideal societal model of marriage.

Of course, the idea falls apart on a great many other points, not least his deeply flawed initial assumptions.
.

[tomndebb]

@cornopean

We want what’s best for our children and a two parent, different-sex, intact family is what is best for the child.

Really? I am sure that you berlieve that, (although you also hold the biologically inaccurate belief that human children arte hatched, so I am not sure that your beliefs carry much weight).

However, as this is Great Debates and not Odd Opinions, please provide evidence that a child must have two parents of different sex to be raised successfully. (And please do not waste your time or ours citing the bad joke that was perpetrated by Mark Regnerus.)

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@andros

I don’t know about that, and I don’t think the argument fails automatically because of the existence of infertile hetero couples. I guess he’s arguing, like many do, that it’s the model that’s important; that society is best served when we support and endorse the ideal of heterosexual, monogamous, and lifetime marriage for the ultimate goal of procreation and raising children.

If that is indeed his argument, then I wouldn’t say that the existence of non-procreative marriages automatically kill the argument; provided they remain heterosexual (and, presumably, monogamous and lifetime) they still hold up the ideal societal model of marriage.

But remember, it’s a one-two punch: it’s not just that we’d okay the marriage if we thought they were incapable of reproduction; it’s that, if they interrupted to explain that they’re ready and willing and able to reproduce this very afternoon if we okay the marriage this morning, we say, oh, well, then, no, it’s not okay.

[cornopean]

@hajario

But same sex parenting has been legal for decades. Given that it exists, isn’t it better for the couple to be married than not?

This is something I don’t have entirely nailed down. With my defn of marriage, such a couple cannot get married anymore than a triangle can have four sides. Frankly, I would classify being raised in a same-sex household as being raised in a single-parent household. and if singles are allowed to adopt (are they?), then same sex couples would be allowed to adopt.

What do you prefer an unmarried same sex couple parenting a child or a married same sex couple, with all of the rights, parenting a child?

IMO…this is just being raised by a single parent. whether there are two or three or four adults in the house is immaterial.

[cornopean]

@iiandyiiii

Same-sex parenting has been legal for a long time (before SSM), and even before it was legal, same-sex parents existed (usually when one of the same-sex parents is the biological parent). There’s no data that suggests that children raised by same-sex parents are disadvantaged or less loved in any way. There’s no data that suggests that such children would prefer to be raised by different-sex parents.

what kind of data would count as supporting the idea that children are better off in traditional families? For me, it’s just self-evident. No data needed. if children had a choice, they would choose the traditional family.

Same-sex parents typically either adopt children who have no parents or raise the biological children of one of the parents. In both cases the alternative is far worse than being raised by the same-sex couple, even if same-sex parents were inferior parents to different-sex parents (and there’s no reason to believe this is so).

This is a tough issue for me. I agree…the alternative is often worse than being raised by a single parent.

Your assertions sound like personally bigoted feelings about homosexual people. There’s no rational reason to believe that same-sex parents are “dysfunctional” or unable to raise children properly and with love.

it always comes down to those of us supporting traditional marriage being bigots. the truth is…I love gay people and would cut off my arm for them. but a father brings something to a child that a mother can’t and vice versa. To me, that is just self-evident.

[cornopean]

@DrFidelius

Cornopean , can I ask you a question?

Are you married?

yes

[iiandyiiii]

@cornopean

IMO…this is just being raised by a single parent. whether there are two or three or four adults in the house is immaterial.

What if there are two loving and healthy adults whom the child loves and sees as his/her parents, who both lavish the child with care and education and spend all of their free time together with the child, and who are in a committed and loving and stable relationship with each other, and who raise the child from infancy to adulthood? What could they be other than the child’s parents?

[iiandyiiii]

@cornopean

what kind of data would count as supporting the idea that children are better off in traditional families? For me, it’s just self-evident. No data needed. if children had a choice, they would choose the traditional family.

This is quite evidently false, since there are many such children, and many of them have been asked and have expressed love and devotion for their same-sex parents who raised them.

I’m not going to take your word for it – I’ll take theirs, unless you actually have real data to look at.

This is a tough issue for me. I agree…the alternative is often worse than being raised by a single parent.

Your conflation of two committed and stable adults in a loving relationship as “single parents” is juvenile and offensive. If two adults spend all their time and love on their child, then they are the child’s parents. That’s what the child will believe, and that should be good enough for you.

[Rick_Kitchen]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFidelius
Cornopean , can I ask you a question?

Are you married?

yes

To a human being?

[Broomstick]

@cornopean

So what term are we supposed to use when we want to refer to that relationship where procreation is a possibility? There is only one such relationship capable of procreation. We used to call it “marriage”. What is the term for it now?

Seriously?

WHEN have we ever made that distinction before? When were people required to certify fertility before marriage? That’s just another red herring.

There are plenty of opposite-sex marriages that are incapable of procreation, why do you want to start singling them out?

[SpoilerVirgin]

For me, it’s just self-evident. No data needed. if children had a choice, they would choose the traditional family.

So you’ve never actually asked the child of gay parents. Actual children of gay parents disagree with you.

Interestingly, the most difficult issue cited by children of gay parents is being teased or bullied because their parents are gay. Marriage equality and acceptance can only improve that situation.

[cornopean]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

But being a single parent is legal. You say you don’t want to normalize it, but you don’t say you want to make it illegal. But then you say you don’t want a same-sex couple to be parents: you don’t want it normalized or legalized. What am I missing? Why can’t you just do the same don’t-wanna-normalize-but-yeah-okay-legalize bit?

I agree. I contradicted myself here. Let me try again.

Marriage as an institution is important because it gives expression to the fact that every child deserves to be raised by the two people who created him/her. As soon as you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you break this. The very reason for marriage is now eliminated.

That’s why I was so insistent on knowing what term to attach to a relationship that is capable of procreation. Whatever we call this relationship, we have to attach to it as well the obligation that any children created by this union will be raised by the two biological parents.

To bring adoption law into this gets extremely complicated b/c almost anything is better than a child living in an institution or jumping from foster home to foster home.

[cornopean]

@Broomstick

Seriously?

WHEN have we ever made that distinction before? When were people required to certify fertility before marriage? That’s just another red herring.

There are plenty of opposite-sex marriages that are incapable of procreation, why do you want to start singling them out?

In a previous post, we already established that we disagree on this. I see a capacity for procreation even in infertile couples (as they themselves often discover to their joy) that is very different from what exists in a same-sex relationship.

[Broomstick]

@cornopean

I don’t care what was or wasn’t. I am asking about right now. What is the term for the relationship that is capable of producing babies?

Strictly speaking, no relationship is required for producing babies. A woman can purchase sperm and inseminate herself without ever being within 10 miles of the biological sperm donor. Sorry, that boat sailed decades ago.

There isn’t such a term. It doesn’t exist. It probably will never exist.

[andros]

@cornopean

what kind of data would count as supporting the idea that children are better off in traditional families? For me, it’s just self-evident. No data needed

Well. I guess this is the forum for witnessing, after all.

But actual reality does not match up with what you find “self-evident.” A recent meta-analysis* of 19,000 different research studies and articles shows unequivocally that “there is no difference between same-sex and different-sex parenting in the psychological, behavioral or educational outcomes of children.”

There is evidence for you that children are no better off in “traditional” families. Do you have evidence tot he contrary, besides your gut telling you stuff?

*I’m happy to link to the study itself on request, but it’s paywalled.