Marriage Equality Thread

[U-Ute]

I don't know why it is so hard for so many to see that disapproval of same sex marriage can be based on principle. Can you at least concede that, jrj and Two Utes? It doesn't have to be the result of sociological factors. Are your core beliefs based on your upbringing and environment? Or is that true only for those who disagree with you? Give us a little credit, guys.

I believe that it is because the general perception is that this principle is fundamentally driven by religious beliefs. While that may not be the case for you, for the majority of people, or at least the very vocal minority, who did not support SSM this appears to be the case. I have yet to see a credible basis for this strongly held principle that isn't founded primarily in theological terms. The best I have seen (paraphrasing) "children need a whole family with influence from both sides", but that leads to all sorts of legal entanglements with regards to divorce, rape that lead to pregnancies, and births out of wedlock.

For the most part, same sex couples who want to be married are doing so because of all of the legal ramifications that come from it. Things like tax benefits, hospital visitation, medical benefits, property rights transfers upon death, etc. Those seem like perfectly reasonable reasons that should not be denied just because someone feels a bit icky about the whole situation.

[jrj84105]

Again, you're ascribing a position to many people that just didn't exist, and also implying that if people don't apologize for a position that they never held then they are just doubling down on non-existent bigotry. It's very smooth and emblematic of how well the movement has set the tone and (mis)defined public perception in a way that guaranteed the demonization of the opposition.

My response was to LA who from all I can gather in this thread does stake his position based purely on principle(s), and those personal principles are highly informed by religious doctrine. If that's not the case for LA, then there have been about 20 posts that have failed to convey exactly what the rationale was, which is a central theme to the entire anti-gay marriage platform.

I think the vast majority of people on both sides feel the same way that you do and are viscerally opposed to imposing their beliefs (religious or otherwise) on the rest of society. I think this is especially true of younger people who seem to hold this as a deeply ingrained value. There is a lot of fear among religious people that the gay lobby will now force their belief structure, including gay marriage, on churches. I think people would generally be opposed to this for the same reasons they were opposed to religious groups pushing their agenda on gays. It violates the live and let live principle. The only caveat is that I think religious opponents of gay marriage have built up a lot of ill will through the process and haven't exactly garnered a lot of sympathy for people to rally behind them in the aftermath of the decision. I think that's why some apologies and some humility would be strategically important. If they want to continue to adopt the victim role, act persecuted, and refuse to acknowledge any hurt caused by their actions, then god help them because that rhetoric is putting them in a very treacherous position politically.

As for your position, it sounds like you're talking about a decision for the general good of society? I ask with a "?" because the non-religious opposition never really came out with a unified, concise argument and I still am uncertain what your objections are/were from your post.

To me, these "greater good" arguments resemble the stadium expansion pro/con arguments. A lot of people against stadium expansion say that 10k additional seats don't cover the $50M price tag. That's entirely true, and I think it's also true that traditional families with a father and mother are the best way to raise children and are the bedrock of our society.

Proponents of stadium expansion argue that the SEZ has to come down regardless and rebuilding the SEZ alone will cost $30-40M so the true cost of expansion is only $10-20M. Likewise, people who are gay are gay, and regardless of the legal status of marriage, they will partner and have children. So the social cost of homosexuality, in this paradigm, is largely engendered by people being gay and having children which is largely independent of gay people's access to marriage.

Additionally, virtually none of our other building projects pay for themselves, so the fact that expansion at least partially covers the $10-20M price tag is a positive. Again with gay marriage, does encouraging those same gay people who are already partnering and raising children to do it under the protections and stabilizing force of the marriage contract at least partially cover the social cost of non-traditional parents raising children? I think there's a good case to be made that it would, but clearly little data.

I guess the final parallel, is that if we expand the stadium and interest drops, would it cause the price point to drop across all our currently existing seats thereby devaluing what we already have? That would depend on the current rate of filled seats and the number of seats added. At 100% stadium capacity currently and ticket price inflation due to imposed scarcity, I think this is a real possibility if we over expand the stadium. Extending the analogy, if we had 100% of kids currently raised in male-female two parent households, and gays were exclusively avoiding their impulses and also raising children in male/female two parent households, then expanding marriage to gays would be a bad idea from a "greater good" perspective.

In the reality, our traditional marriage "occupancy" so to speak is 65% with 35% of kids currently raised in single parent households. Because gays represent 2-5% of the population, if we encourage more gays to have kids by allowing marriage, we're still looking at similar impact as what would happen if we expanded our stadium by 1-2k non-paying student seats when we're only selling 65% of tickets. It's doesn't produce any revenue, but it's probably no worse than empty seats, and there's a chance some of those students (gay married couples) may turn out to be future season ticket holders (good parents).

Anyway, that's about as far as I can take that analogy.

By the same extension, I don't see how mandating churches to perform gay marriages serves the greater good in any way, while it definitely violates our shared aversion to forceful extension of one's belief structure on others. A lot of people may feel the same, but some people who share that opinion may lack the conviction necessary to go to bat on for the churches, largely due ill will generated by the rhetoric coming from church spokespeople.

[Rocker Ute]

I'll probably get drilled for this too, but if religious ideals are driving some of the support, we also need to acknowledge - right or wrong - that there are biological reasons driving people's opinion on that matter. Specifically it is hard for some people to understand that attraction as it goes against their very nature, just like it is hard for some people to understand depression and other mental illness. I'm not equating homosexuality with mental illness, I am just saying for many people it just simply doesn't compute because nothing in their nature can't relate. Keep in mind that it is a fairly recently understanding that homosexuality is biological, and all previous understanding to that point was it was a mental disease at best and an evil perversion at worst. These were beliefs held by western civilization for a very very long time.

Of course that isn't grounds to discriminate, but if you are upset about people aged 35-55 opinion about homosexuality, go talk to a person 70+, 90% of them absolutely don't get it, just like our kids won't get our positions 10-15 years from now. After the Elder Perry 'counterfeit lifestyle' comment, I joked with a friend that I was pretty certain that was the nicest term any person over 90 had ever used about homosexuality.

Because of the extreme minority of the population that is LGBT many people will be entrenched in their beliefs for years to come. The ONLY effective means I've seen to help people understand the issues is to have a actual relationship with someone who is LGBT. Proof of this is that real progress was only made with the LGBT and LDS communities when they sat down together and began talking.

[Rocker Ute]

I think the vast majority of people on both sides feel the same way that you do and are viscerally opposed to imposing their beliefs (religious or otherwise) on the rest of society. I think this is especially true of younger people who seem to hold this as a deeply ingrained value. There is a lot of fear among religious people that the gay lobby will now force their belief structure, including gay marriage, on churches. I think people would generally be opposed to this for the same reasons they were opposed to religious groups pushing their agenda on gays. It violates the live and let live principle. The only caveat is that I think religious opponents of gay marriage have built up a lot of ill will through the process and haven't exactly garnered a lot of sympathy for people to rally behind them in the aftermath of the decision. I think that's why some apologies and some humility would be strategically important. If they want to continue to adopt the victim role, act persecuted, and refuse to acknowledge any hurt caused by their actions, then god help them because that rhetoric is putting them in a very treacherous position politically.

The problem is, the rhetoric is there. If you oppose gay marriage overtly, covertly or even just simply privately disagree with it you are now part of a 'hate group' or a 'bigot'. Maybe it is because I've seen actual hate groups in action, but to me those are very very strong words and I can confidently say someone like LA Ute doesn't even approach that and I don't think most people do. The problem with this is using the terminology doesn't help dialogue necessary to change people's point of view.

I think the big challenge for people today is the speed and availability of information is a great thing, but we haven't matured enough to understand the context of most anything, and this is true for just about everything. I've joked that this generation's primary export is outrage... it comes so cheap and easy.

Shortly before my Grandpa died he was at our place for Christmas he was about 90yo. We were passing around a plate of cookies and he picked up a ginger bread man shaped cookie that someone has frosted with brown frosting. He looked at it and said, "Oh look! A n------ cookie." The whole table gasped and he realized what he said, so he looked at the cookie and said, "I forgot you don't like to be called that... I'm sorry cookie." Fortunately he was among people who knew and understood him. Was he a racist, hate-filled bigot? No, his history was quite the opposite. (I won't go into the details but will just say he spent a lot of time and his reputation standing up for a black family in a small Utah town - no small feat.) However, he was a 90yo man with some cultural issues and offensive terminology that were ingrained in him. And for those of you who might be related to an old racist person - as many grandparents were/are, I'll bet you've found some redeeming qualities in sweet old Grandmama too, just don't get her talking about certain subjects.

There would be no tolerance whatsoever for what my Grandpa said today in the public. A great-grandson would tweet the interaction and 3 hours later he'd be kicked out of his retirement community.

So for me, the live and let live is going to have to come from both sides. Calling someone a bigot seems to only steel their resolve.

[Diehard Ute]

If it's not about religion someone should tell the very vocal leaders of (mostly) Southern states to stop invoking God and religion in their statements condemning the ruling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mUUser]

It's that part -- that "children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother" that is the core principle for me. It is an ideal, and yes, we as a society fall short of it all the time. But it's still an ideal worth supporting. Kids are not pets, and having and rearing kids is not about adult desires or fun. It's about what is best for the kids......

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

While its still rather young, I think the research is initially concluding that as long as the child is raised in a healthy, loving home, there's no difference in a child's psychological well being between a traditional home and a same sex married home. No?

[Mormon Red Death]

Personally, I have felt what it is to hate. It's an awful feeling. I feel comfortable in saying I don't have anything close to that feeling for anyone due to sexual orientation or political position. So, yeah, it bugs me to be called hateful. But I guess that's the point, right? It was never meant to be honest. It was meant to be effective.



Depends on the person. Some people double down. Some withdraw. Some change their position.

Did you join the KKK when you were in NOLA or something?

[Scratch]

So Rocker, what you're telling me is some of your grandfather's best friends were black?

[scottie]

It's that part -- that "children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother" that is the core principle for me. It is an ideal, and yes, we as a society fall short of it all the time. But it's still an ideal worth supporting. Kids are not pets, and having and rearing kids is not about adult desires or fun. It's about what is best for the kids.

If what jrj says here is correct, then that wasn't the correct principle to base your SSM disapproval on:

Proponents of stadium expansion argue that the SEZ has to come down regardless and rebuilding the SEZ alone will cost $30-40M so the true cost of expansion is only $10-20M. Likewise, people who are gay are gay, and regardless of the legal status of marriage, they will partner and have children. So the social cost of homosexuality, in this paradigm, is largely engendered by people being gay and having children which is largely independent of gay people's access to marriage.

Anyway...

I follow Dan Rather on Facebook, and he posted this yesterday about his personal journey, thought it was pretty good:

I have often said that I never thought back when I was covering the brutal battles of the Civil Rights Movement that I would live to see an African-American president. But at least in the shank of the evening over an adult beverage or two that was something we would speculate about. What no one ever thought to even discuss was whether we would have legalized gay marriage anywhere, let alone now in all 50 states.

It might be difficult for some of my younger readers to realize, but for most of my life what we now refer to as the LGBT community was never discussed in "polite" company. And all of the horrible epithets for gays were bandied about without a second thought. Today President Obama mentions LGBT in a speech and no one takes notice. The White House is bathed in a rainbow light and it becomes an internet meme. It's a far cry from what Democratic Senator Edmund Muskie was quoted as saying when he ran for president in 1972. "Goddamn it, if I have to be nice to a bunch of sodomites to be elected President, then f--k it." That was certainly the prevailing political calculation at the time.


I was raised in a religious household in Texas and I understand the deeply-held religious beliefs that many people who are concerned with the Supreme Court ruling have. (I distinguish this from the cynical political motives driving some public officials and media personalities to decry marriage equality). I do believe that people of good faith can disagree on this. But at the same time, I am heartened that so many of my fellow Americans are changing their minds. It's a journey I myself have followed.


When I was young, I wasn't very enlightened on gay issues. I probably, if asked at the time, wouldn't have been very tolerant by today's standards. But two important things happened. One is that I had some very close friends come out to me. This was decades ago and it reoriented me, an experience I imagine is similar for so many people. It's easy to see gays as "others" until one is a close family member, colleague or friend.


The other thing that happened is I saw my mission as a journalist to give voice to the powerless. And for most of my career the LGBT community was the voiceless and powerless. There is more to be done but I am happy today that LGBT voices are now a much fuller part of our national discourse. We are a better nation because of it.

[Rocker Ute]

So Rocker, what you're telling me is some of your grandfather's best friends were black?

Well at least one cookie.

[jrj84105]

I think at one point the terms "harm/harmful" was used by myself and others on the pro gay marriage side and in the subsequent anti-gay marriage responses it was immediately paraphrased to "hate/hateful". Scratch talked about false narratives, but one false narrative is this narrative of persecution, and I think some people are so primed to feel persecuted that they are hearing these words "hate" and "bigot" when those words aren't there. Certainly there are people who believe the anti-gay marriage stance is/was hateful and bigoted, but there seems to be a really strange perception that everyone ascribes these negative qualities to gay marriage opponents when that's not the case. Gay marriage opponents don't, by and large, hate gay people. Gay marriage proponents don't, by and large, hate religious people. Both sides think the other side are acting like dicks, and, by and large, both are right. If both sides continue to act like dicks then we'll wind up with churches forced to marry gays and tax exempt status revoked for institutions at the periphery of religious exercise. At least one side has to quit acting like dicks to keep that from happening. The churches are the ones with something to lose, so they stand to gain more by reducing the level of dickishness.

[jrj84105]

Well at least one cookie.

My grandma (dad's MIL) used to affectionately call my dad, my brother and I "the darkies", which was presumably due to our partial "Native American" ancestry. I did the genetic testing and found out that I'm not part NA but actually of the African and Jewish persuasion. I'm not sure if I should be more fake offended as a partial Jew, partial African, pretend Native American, or medium complected white person.

[Scratch]

jrj, to respond to your post generally, I support equal legal rights (that is, comprehensive civil unions). I believe there could be some negative social impact from doing so, but also believe that any such possible impact would be vastly outweighed by the benefits from such legal equality.

Your position apparently is that encouraging a few more gay couples to raise children is pretty de minimis. I agree, and that's why I'm fine with civil unions. My biggest concern is the message that is sent by further redefining families. It seems pretty inevitable to me that further expanding and modifying our cultural understanding of marriage and family just weakens the perception non-traditional families (in other words, any family without a mother and a father) are a significant departure from our social ideal. Obviously SSM is just a small part of the chipping away of this ideal, but I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not as terribly concerned with the 1% (or whatever the figure is) of kids being raised in a same sex relationship as I am with the impact SSM will have on the 65% and 35% figures you tossed out. I don't think there is anything doing more damage to our society than the growth of that 35% figure and everything that goes along with it (that's obviously not an attack on any individuals raising kids or who were raised in that 35%), but it's pretty clear to me that there's nothing that would benefit society more than raising that 65% number with stable, healthy relationships.

[jrj84105]

jrj, to respond to your post generally, I support equal legal rights (that is, comprehensive civil unions). I believe there could be some negative social impact from doing so, but also believe that any such possible impact would be vastly outweighed by the benefits from such legal equality.

Your position apparently is that encouraging a few more gay couples to raise children is pretty de minimis. I agree, and that's why I'm fine with civil unions. My biggest concern is the message that is sent by further redefining families. It seems pretty inevitable to me that further expanding and modifying our cultural understanding of marriage and family just weakens the perception non-traditional families (in other words, any family without a mother and a father) are a significant departure from our social ideal. Obviously SSM is just a small part of the chipping away of this ideal, but I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not as terribly concerned with the 1% (or whatever the figure is) of kids being raised in a same sex relationship as I am with the impact SSM will have on the 65% and 35% figures you tossed out. I don't think there is anything doing more damage to our society than the growth of that 35% figure and everything that goes along with it (that's obviously not an attack on any individuals raising kids or who were raised in that 35%), but it's pretty clear to me that there's nothing that would benefit society more than raising that 65% number with stable, healthy relationships.

Yes. I really hope we can wrap up the current distraction of gay marriage (not to minimize the profound importance to the 2-5%, but to realistically acknowledge that it has little impact on the other 95%) and get to the heart of this issue, which is IMO a much thornier problem. I think social conservatives see the root of the issue as erosion of a value system that places a premium on the sanctity of marriage (I think where you stand) while fiscal liberals (myself included) see it as an intermediate outcome that is in many instances the result of a diminishing middle class (financial issues are cited as the most common reason for divorce). There is the problematic cycle of high incarceration of minority males and fatherless children (greater than 50% of AA) and the corresponding question of whether or not drug policy is worsening the situation. Nobody wants to talk about the unforeseen effect of women entering the workplace, namely the emergence of power couples soaking up high paying positions while uneducated people marry each other creating an underclass of less educated and low wage couples, an underclass that experiences the highest rate of bankruptcy, lack of healthcare, lack of education, divorce, substance abuse, abortion, you name it. Social sciences aren't rigorous enough to provide empirical data to guide decisions on which of these factors are more causative of decline and which of these factors are more likely to respond to intervention. That leaves us in an battle of ideologies with central concepts to the debate like self reliance, bootstraps, safety net, wealth redistribution, income inequality, etc so emotionally charged, that I sort of think we'll continue to spar around the margins with less consequential stuff like gay marriage rather than addressing the central issues.

That's where I feel defeated in all of this, and frustrated that a substantial proportion of the 95-98% of straight people have been so fixated on a gay marriage that we've neglected our bigger problems for another decade during which the larger societal ills have only gotten worse. I think I would have the same beef with the gay rights movement if they proceed to go after the churches in the next five years instead of backing off and refocusing on the bigger issue, which as married couples with children is going to impact gay couples a lot more than where they have the wedding and who bakes the cake.

PS: The thing is there is one closely held Mormon belief that I think, if implemented across the spectrum, would go a long way toward fixing these problems (including wealth inequality, unemployment, single parent households, etc), and that is having one parent at home. I don't see that as actionable, because it would in practice discriminate against working women in opposite sex marriages, but ironically would be non-discriminatory for same sex couples.

[Rocker Ute]

I think at one point the terms "harm/harmful" was used by myself and others on the pro gay marriage side and in the subsequent anti-gay marriage responses it was immediately paraphrased to "hate/hateful". Scratch talked about false narratives, but one false narrative is this narrative of persecution, and I think some people are so primed to feel persecuted that they are hearing these words "hate" and "bigot" when those words aren't there. Certainly there are people who believe the anti-gay marriage stance is/was hateful and bigoted, but there seems to be a really strange perception that everyone ascribes these negative qualities to gay marriage opponents when that's not the case. Gay marriage opponents don't, by and large, hate gay people. Gay marriage proponents don't, by and large, hate religious people. Both sides think the other side are acting like dicks, and, by and large, both are right. If both sides continue to act like dicks then we'll wind up with churches forced to marry gays and tax exempt status revoked for institutions at the periphery of religious exercise. At least one side has to quit acting like dicks to keep that from happening. The churches are the ones with something to lose, so they stand to gain more by reducing the level of dickishness.

A few snippets from Facebook today that might indicate that I'm not just 'hearing' false narratives of 'hate/bigotry'. These are taken as written original posts:

"If you belong to a religion, any religion, that treats any LGBT with anything less than love, respect and decency you are a piece of shit and probably not even worthy to your own god.
Love is love and hate is hate and you can't pretend otherwise."

"Your thoughts on gay marriage aren't about principles it is about hate, pure and simple..."

That's just a couple of them... Sandwiched between those two was a video of Jimmer dancing, so I'm not having the best Facebook day.

[LA Ute]

Also, why does part of you wish you'd lost on Prop 8?

Forgot to answer this. Because in hindsight it only forestalled the inevitable, and most of the truly awful (much of it truly inexcusable) backlash occurred afterwards. But hindsight is always so clear! Past is past. I'm happy it's all in the past. Maybe someone like Lincoln will come along and talk this way:

"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

Or maybe a Nelson Mandela will emerge with something like his national reconciliation movement. Good story about that here:

http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/12/...s-moment-grace

[LA Ute]

If what jrj says here is correct, then that wasn't the correct principle to base your SSM disapproval on:

Anyway...

I am really talking about an ideal. By the time Prop 8 came along I had several gay colleagues who had adopted kids with their partners. California law gave them full rights to do that. They were raising great kids and were devoted parents. To me, as a matter of conscience and principle, I still didn't want to support that as equivalent to a marriage because it didn't meet the ideal of a mom and a dad for every kid. (There were amicus briefs filed in the Obergefell case by children of same-sex marriages who had some interesting views on that subject. Basically they did not like it that their parents made the decision for them th that they would never have both a mother and a father. They reported feeling unmet yearnings for a mother or a father, depending on which one they didn't have. I find it impossible to blithely dismiss those stories.)

With that, I'm done explaining my approach to Prop 8. It was seven years ago and has long since been overturned, and now everything has changed.

I follow Dan Rather on Facebook, and he posted this yesterday about his personal journey, thought it was pretty good:

Rather is 23 years older than I am but I found myself nodding my head as I read that. His description of the past rings true to me and is similar to my experience -- my views have evolved too. I suppose some people here see me as a neanderthal, or perhaps a guy who's just a hopeless prisoner of his generation (a very condescending view, IMO) but that ain't me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jrj84105]

A few snippets from Facebook today that might indicate that I'm not just 'hearing' false narratives of 'hate/bigotry'. These are taken as written original posts:

"If you belong to a religion, any religion, that treats any LGBT with anything less than love, respect and decency you are a piece of shit and probably not even worthy to your own god.
Love is love and hate is hate and you can't pretend otherwise."

"Your thoughts on gay marriage aren't about principles it is about hate, pure and simple..."

That's just a couple of them... Sandwiched between those two was a video of Jimmer dancing, so I'm not having the best Facebook day.

Facebook? Just wish them the best in governing their farmville community according to their convictions.

[Rocker Ute]

Facebook? Just wish them the best in governing their farmville community according to their convictions.

These weren't posts directed at me (I think) just posts that people were making on their own walls that of course show up on mine.

One that was meant to be funny, or at least made me laugh was, "Sorry you are a bigot if you didn't change your profile pic to the rainbow filter."

The point is, you said accusations of hate/bigotry didn't exist or was a false narrative. It clearly is not... that is the drumbeat today. I could scroll back to when the ruling was announced and get you probably a couple dozen similar quotes from people. Facebook is more fun when people post what they ate that day or inspirational but falsely attributed quotes.

[NorthwestUteFan]

The problem with the statement that children are better off raised by heterosexual couples than lbgt couples, is that the overwhelming majority of the data (hundreds of studies and countless subjects) shows that children raised by lgbt couples are at least equal to those raised by raised by hetero couples.

By far the bigger factor in the lives of the children is the stability of the home life (e.g. when the parents break up and a new parent figure comes in). This is the reality for hetero as well as lgbt couples. And this ruling enhances the stability in the homes of lgbt couples (because they are now married).

[LA Ute]

The problem with the statement that children are better off raised by heterosexual couples than lbgt couples, is that the overwhelming majority of the data (hundreds of studies and countless subjects) shows that children raised by lgbt couples are at least equal to those raised by raised by hetero couples.

Fro the kids' sake I truly hope you are proven to be right eventually but with so few same-sex parents I don't see how there can be enough data yet to reach any hard conclusions.

[LA Ute]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[U-Ute]

Wait. I thought we determined a person's sexuality by the kind of car they drive.

I'm obviously going to need a new rule sheet in this new world of ours.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Fro the kids' sake I truly hope you are proven to be right eventually but with so few same-sex parents I don't see how there can be enough data yet to reach any hard conclusions.

Perhaps you have not looked into the literature or read the statements by most of the professional psychology associations worldwide.

But that is inconsequential anyway. The percentage of married lgbt couples who will have children is a very small percentage of the total of all couples (hetero- or homo-) who have children. Most lgbt couples who have children are in fact raising their own biological children anyway, and the relative few who adopt are far more likely to be good parents because they put so much effort into even qualifying for the adoption and they desperately WANT children. The same certainly can not be said for all hetero couples, especially when a child is considered to be an 'Oops'.

But this breaks the majoroty of your opposition down to "What about the children?", as though marriage is simply a vehicle to bring more children into the world and into a stable home life. Kids are wonderful, but they are far from the primary reason to get married.

Anyway, my wish is that all of this effort spent arguing both sides of this issue can now be spent ensuring underprivileged people have access to good food, clean water, adequate healthcare, and justice for all. I am sure you agree with me on this point, because I know you to be a fundamentally good and decent person.

[NorthwestUteFan]

And Ellen DeGeneres is witty charming, vivacious, and disarmingly comfortable in her own skin.

It is to my great shame that I used to call her "Ellen Degenerate", based only on her sexuality. SMH.

[LA Ute]

Perhaps you have not looked into the literature or read the statements by most of the professional psychology associations worldwide.

But that is inconsequential anyway. The percentage of married lgbt couples who will have children is a very small percentage of the total of all couples (hetero- or homo-) who have children. Most lgbt couples who have children are in fact raising their own biological children anyway, and the relative few who adopt are far more likely to be good parents because they put so much effort into even qualifying for the adoption and they desperately WANT children. The same certainly can not be said for all hetero couples, especially when a child is considered to be an 'Oops'.

But this breaks the majoroty of your opposition down to "What about the children?", as though marriage is simply a vehicle to bring more children into the world and into a stable home life. Kids are wonderful, but they are far from the primary reason to get married.

Anyway, my wish is that all of this effort spent arguing both sides of this issue can now be spent ensuring underprivileged people have access to good food, clean water, adequate healthcare, and justice for all. I am sure you agree with me on this point, because I know you to be a fundamentally good and decent person.

23_2_46.gif

[#1 Utefan]

Perhaps you have not looked into the literature or read the statements by most of the professional psychology associations worldwide.

But that is inconsequential anyway. The percentage of married lgbt couples who will have children is a very small percentage of the total of all couples (hetero- or homo-) who have children. Most lgbt couples who have children are in fact raising their own biological children anyway, and the relative few who adopt are far more likely to be good parents because they put so much effort into even qualifying for the adoption and they desperately WANT children. The same certainly can not be said for all hetero couples, especially when a child is considered to be an 'Oops'.

But this breaks the majoroty of your opposition down to "What about the children?", as though marriage is simply a vehicle to bring more children into the world and into a stable home life. Kids are wonderful, but they are far from the primary reason to get married.

Anyway, my wish is that all of this effort spent arguing both sides of this issue can now be spent ensuring underprivileged people have access to good food, clean water, adequate healthcare, and justice for all. I am sure you agree with me on this point, because I know you to be a fundamentally good and decent person.

Most LGBT couples raising children are raising their own biological children? Please explain how this works. Inquiring minds want to know.

[NorthwestUteFan]

23_2_46.gif

I'm not beating you up so much as fleshing out the argument in my own mind.

How much longer until football starts?

[NorthwestUteFan]

Most LGBT couples raising children are raising their own biological children? Please explain how this works. Inquiring minds want to know.

My BIL was previously married. He and his husband raised his kids. (Incidentally the older one was Valedictorian if his college last month, and the younger one is on the Deans List every semester. They are pretty well adjusted).

My lesbian cousin was previously married. She is raising her kids with her partner.

A lot of lgbt couples were in previous relationships, where one partner or both created children.

[chrisrenrut]

Most LGBT couples raising children are raising their own biological children? Please explain how this works. Inquiring minds want to know.

Artificial insemination, at least in the case of my close family member and her partner. There is also surrogacy for men. Both quite expensive, even compared to adoption.