posted
"It isn't a call to wait and do nothing. It is a call to study the situation. We have, at our hands, the data to do so. Many lesbian couples have raised children, and some of those are starting to come into adulthood. Lets do some real, unbiased studies on their relationship patterns, on unmarried pregnancy rates, rates of STDs, etc. "
Hrm. My parents divorced when I was 14, I was raised by my father and his girlfriend, and by my mother and HER girlfriend. I've never had sex, no STDs, have caused no pregnancies, and have only dated women I've loved.
I have problems with commitment... but here's the thing. That problem is a "I want to be sure I could marry you before I have sex with you."
Based on that evidence, I think all children, from a relationship standpoint, should be raised by parents til 14, then a lesbian couple and a hetero couple until 24...
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why shouldn't polygamy be ok, if everyone invovled is a consenting adult? I see no reason to forbid it.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, there's the difference, Amka. I have no interest in the "higher" argument, as you put it. To me, the only argument that matters in this discussion is the legal one.
The second most obvious legal argument against polygamy is that it would require a drastic overhaul of the system of spousal benefits.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hrm. My parents divorced when I was 14, I was raised by my father and his girlfriend, and by my mother and HER girlfriend. I've never had sex, no STDs, have caused no pregnancies, and have only dated women I've loved.
I have problems with commitment... but here's the thing. That problem is a "I want to be sure I could marry you before I have sex with you."
Based on that evidence, I think all children, from a relationship standpoint, should be raised by parents til 14, then a lesbian couple and a hetero couple until 24...
Um, there are many, many people - many of them here at Hatrack - that did not/will not have sex until they are married.
What I find both fascinating and sloppy about your argument is that the no sex until married is the highest value, but it is achieved by being raised by people who DIDN'T follow that.
Who gets to be the royalty and who gets to be the raisers in that scenario?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a question I'd like to see taken up by some of our Mormon friends. Since the Mormon Church originally allowed polygamy and then changed (by divine revelation or to meet US law requirements), what was the reasoning behind it?
I've heard two versions, one was that the Prophets said it was no longer correct and another said that it was US cannonry and the decree of law that instituted the change?
The question was not asked to offend, please understand, but in an effort to be enlightened.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It isn't a call to wait and do nothing. It is a call to study the situation. We have, at our hands, the data to do so. Many lesbian couples have raised children, and some of those are starting to come into adulthood.
Lets do some real, unbiased studies on their relationship patterns, on unmarried pregnancy rates, rates of STDs, etc.
Amka, I'm talking about gay marriage, not adoption. I can't even imagine a study that could be done validly that would prove anything regarding gay marriage. Where would you do the study? How long would you allow for the study? Someone early in this thread argued that we should look at the experience of other countries that have now allowed gay unions. Wait a few geneerations and see what happens, right?
Yeah, that's fair. It's just a delaying tactic.
As for polygamy. If it is among consenting adults, why exactly does the state have to concern itself with it?
Okay, now let's talk about children and adoption/child rearing. Wouldn't it be funny if you found out that children raised in polygamist households are the most stable and least likely to contract diseases or have sex out of wedlock? Wouldn't that mean that "normal" neterosexual marriages are harmful to kids by comparison?
The only criterion that should matter to THE STATE is whether someone is a contributing member of society. So really what you ought to look at is what percentage of kids from each type of "home environment" end up homeless or on welfare. Beyond that, you are just injecting value judgements into the studies you propose. But sure, I'm willing to even go further and bet that kids raised in a loving home by two homosexuals are less likely to end up with STDs than kids raised by the average heterosexual couple chosen at random.
But you also have a bias built into any such study. If it turned out that kids raised in homosexual households have problems that other kids do not, one obvious confounding factor is that the parents in the homosexual household have barriers to their lives that no heterosexual couple has to deal with. They have legal barriers that a legally married couple do not have. They have custodial barriers that a legally married couple do not have.
What are the effects of those barriers? If they adversely affect the kids, are you willing to say that the barriers should be dropped to make it fair, or would you say "hey, those people shouldn't adopt because the barriers we allow to remain in place make it too hard for them to effectively raise children."
See, you can't do the studies you propose. The only thing that they could ever PROVE is the negation of your premise that homosexual parenting is harmful. If no differences were found or if kids in homosexual households "tested" better on whatever measures you propose, despite all the barriers placed on such households, then the logical conclusion would be that homosexuals are at least as good parents as heterosexuals. But if the case turned out the other way, the old third-variable problem rears its ugly head and you can't draw any conclusions at all.
Again I say, it isn't worth waiting for. You can't affirm your hypothesis of harm to children or society because you won't eliminate the inequalities before running the studies.
So, basically, you all are just asking for delays because the idea makes you uncomfortable.
The conclusion is basically inescapable.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> As for polygamy. If it is among consenting adults, why exactly does the state have to concern itself with it? <<
Because it causes massive legal problems. Do all of your spouses share your corporate health coverage? Only one spouse? Two spouses? Do modifications need to be made to the taxable income of a polygamist based on the number of spouses? What about homosexual polygamy? Can a group of five men get married? Do they all share one anothers' corporate health coverage?
Polygamy is simply too legally problematic to be workable.
Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, doesn't require any drastic changes to existing laws -- if it requires any changes at all.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amka, your assertion was that you couldn't donate if you had sex with a man who'd engaged in homosexual sex since 1977. I don't think that is true. You need to wait 12 months after having sex with a man who had sex with a man. However, you also need to wait that long if you didn't ask your sexual partner that question, and probably, it would be a good idea to wait even if you did he might have lied.
Secondly, I wonder, since you seem to be saying that girls raised by lesbians are more sexually advernturous (and it seems like that is a bad thing in your mind) what would you think about boys only being allowed to be raised by lesbians? I mean, after all, they are more nurturing and affectionate (seems like a good thing to me) when raised by lesbians?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: We need to evaluate sexual permissiveness as whole and its effect on society and the environment in which children are raised.
And if we find that there is increased risk, and lower family stability in the long term, with the advent of homosexual couples parenting, then we need to evaluate if that risk outweighs the privilage of being able to adopt and foster children, or using state monies to help fund homosexually derived infertility (using sperm donors or surregate moms).
Let's say I agree with the first part of your arguement above. Why should gays be held to a higher standard than straights? If promiscuity is the problem why wouldn't that be the defining factor in adoption for both gay and straight potential parents?
Also, let's say I accept your assumption that the percentage of promiscuous homosexuals is higher than that of promiscuous straights. It does not necessarily follow that this percentage constitutes a majority of gays. Why hold the whole group accountable for the behaviors of a subset therein?
quote: I can't imagine that the people who are promiscuous are thinking "If only I could promise not to do this, I wouldn't do it."
You don't have to be married to not sleep around.
That is true. However, marriage would help in giving a greater sense of legitimacy to gay unions than currently exists. I, personally, don't think I need "marriage" in order to help me control my behavior. However, the added weight of the stigma of homosexuality that still exists (as can be witnessed in this thread) is a very real hinderance to the establishment of stable relationships among gays. I, myself, have dated someone who was so conflicted in his views of his own sexuality and was struggling with such self hatred that it was impossible for me to continue dating him no matter how much I cared for him. In this way, I think allowing gays to marry could very well help in at least bringing gay promiscuity in line with the general average. (Assuming again that it really is that much greater than the norm in the first place.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is a question I'd like to see taken up by some of our Mormon friends. Since the Mormon Church originally allowed polygamy and then changed (by divine revelation or to meet US law requirements), what was the reasoning behind it?
I've heard two versions, one was that the Prophets said it was no longer correct and another said that it was US cannonry and the decree of law that instituted the change?
Polygamy in the LDS church started with Joseph Smith. It took almost ten years for it to be openly practiced - Joseph Smith and especially Joseph Smith's wife had HUGE concerns with it.
It ended with Official Declaration 1 in 1890 under President Wilford Woodruff. It ended then. There was social pressure for it to happen, but the change was not made by the social pressure.
posted
As to the "higher" argument that Amka and kat seem interested in my opinion on -- I have no moral objection to polygamy.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: If a man, and two women all love each other and they all want to get married into the same union, what are the arguments against it?
and
quote: If homosexual marriage is okay, why isn't polygamy?
You won't get any arguement from me. I think it would be fine as long as all parties were consenting adults.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
To reiterate and summarize my last couple of posts:
I have no moral objections to either homosexual marriage or polygamy. However, the latter is legally unworkable, while the former would be a legal cinch.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because it causes massive legal problems. Do all of your spouses share your corporate health coverage? Only one spouse? Two spouses? Do modifications need to be made to the taxable income of a polygamist based on the number of spouses? What about homosexual polygamy? Can a group of five men get married? Do they all share one anothers' corporate health coverage?
Polygamy is simply too legally problematic to be workable.
So if we moved to a system of Universal Health Care, you're objection to polygamy would be moot, right?
Afterall, a clear line of inheritance (the only other possible issue) could be solved by making everyone have a will.
Seems like this is do-able folks! Let's put Socialized medicine in place so we can all get married to each other!
posted
No, you'd still run into the tax problem. It would be far too easy for a group of people to all get married (say, three women and five men) and then claim tax deductions and so forth.
Edit: kat, you missed this:
Because it causes massive legal problems. Do all of your spouses share your corporate health coverage? Only one spouse? Two spouses? Do modifications need to be made to the taxable income of a polygamist based on the number of spouses? What about homosexual polygamy? Can a group of five men get married? Do they all share one anothers' corporate health coverage?
posted
RE polygamy- It was never declared wrong. It was just declared that it should be stopped at that time.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, you'd still run into the tax problem. It would be far too easy for a group of people to all get married (say, three women and five men) and then claim tax deductions and so forth
Well, since each person claims themselves as a deduction, I don't really see what this would do, other than have a bunch of adults claiming one deduction. It's not like the tax rate it uniformly better for married filing jointly. It's also not like the women in these relationships are earning a lot of money either.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, but say you have a marriage comprised of the hundred top money-earning CEOs in America. Suddenly the government can't tax them for nearly as much Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I don't think a marriage of the top CEOs of the country would take place without a mind-bogglingly complex pre-nup. I can't imagine any tax benefits would be worth the trouble.
quote:Sorry, I don't think a marriage of the top CEOs of the country would take place without a mind-bogglingly complex pre-nup. I can't imagine any tax benefits would be worth the trouble.
That might be almost as epic of a production as this thread... Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm actually all for the 100 top CEOs marrying each other jointly. At least then they'd be screwing each other instead of us!!!
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What poptr said about polygamy. In fact, a man who's wife has died and gets married again can be sealed to that woman. When he dies, and if they were all righteous, he will have two wives.
Twinky,
But that is descrimination based on bueraucratic convenience. That is a very poor reason, IMO. There are actually advantages to polygamy. Imagine the mother who just has to get out and work, and the mother who loves to stay home with the kids. Stable family, the women have actually more freedom to do what they want without giving their children over to daycare.
KarlEd,
Actually, I believe heterosexuals should be held to the same higher standard.
Kayla, I think you are right about the 12 month waiting period. But that isn't so with the actual homosexual man. He is at risk, even if he had sex with a man just once, since 1977.
Bob,
We are stuck between a rock and hard place, Bob, on that. To me, that is like experimenting with a drug that may have some harmful side effects. But we'll just give it to everyone because they want it now, without doing the studies first. Need to know more? Those are just delaying tactics.
This actually happened, but not with a drug. The American Public demanded that the government mandate airbags in cars. The car companies said that they were still conducting studies on safety issues. The American Public said it was a delaying tactic. Do it now. So they did. And they found that airbags could kill children, even in an accident that would otherwise have been minor (such as in a parking lot). In fact, airbags could kill small adults too. People died, because of what the Amercian Public wanted NOW.
I don't think that stress from being a marginal group would necessarily affect the sexuality of the children growing up with homosexual parents.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was going to write a long post in response to katarina. I think it would just cause problems if I did, so I'll shorten it up...
I don't think my attitude towards sex has caused anyone any problems. If my parents had NOT divorced, I likely would have had sex by now, possibly with disastrous consequences for SOMEONE.
People have differing views on standards of sexual conduct. The point of my post was that, for some, if not many people, being raised by parents who divorce, and then a lesbian couple, as well as a hetero-couple cohabitating, is not going to cause harm, and the physical results of such a childhood aren't going to be promiscuity, disease, and pregnancy.
And I thik disease and teen-pregnancy should be what our social policy towards sex should be trying to prevent.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amka, you didn't answer the second part of the question.
quote: Secondly, I wonder, since you seem to be saying that girls raised by lesbians are more sexually advernturous (and it seems like that is a bad thing in your mind) what would you think about boys only being allowed to be raised by lesbians? I mean, after all, they are more nurturing and affectionate (seems like a good thing to me) when raised by lesbians?
posted
You just had to go and ruin all our hard work to turn this thread back into fluff, didn't you?
>> But that is descrimination based on bueraucratic convenience. That is a very poor reason, IMO. <<
The myriad problems caused by allowing polygamy are hardly a mere "beauraucratic conveniece." They are a legal nightmare. It simply cannot be implemented legally. Try to work out all of the possible ramifications and then try to tell me again that it's just "beauraucratic convenience."
>> Imagine the mother who just has to get out and work, and the mother who loves to stay home with the kids. Stable family, the women have actually more freedom to do what they want without giving their children over to daycare. <<
You're assuming that the the only kind of polygamy allowed is one man plus several women. This isn't true.
Again, allowing polygamy changes the definition of marriage to include more than two people. Allowing homosexual marriage does not.
For the umpteenth time, that comparison simply does not hold any water. Invalid argument.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
twinky, it's only invalid in Canada. And, well, you know what they say about Canada. *nods smilingly*
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Actually, in the study, it found the boys were less sexually expressive than the girls. I'm not really sure that is a healthy thing either. What it clearly shows is that something is different. Homosexual parenting is not the same as heterosexual parenting. We really need to determine more.
Would homosexuals be happy with legalized civil unions, but not being allowed to adopt or get state or federal monies to help get themselves or a surrogate pregnant?
And twinky, I still say that isn't a good reason. What of those for whom it is a part of their religion?
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
So let's pretend for the moment that I'm American. Allowing homosexual marriage requires changing the legal definition of marriage from "man and woman" to "two people." Allowing polygamy requires changing the legal definition of marriage to "any number of people of any gender."
One opens a huge legal can of worms. The other does not. That's why I think comparisons to polygamy are useless.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
I do care about the consequences, actually. Maybe having a pragmatic streak makes me a bad person (Radiohead would certainly say so)... I'm sort of an interesting hybrid in that I enjoy abstract theoretical discussions and I'm very interested in them, but when it comes to controversies that directly affect things in the real world here and now, I much prefer to keep my discussion grounded firmly in practical reality.
posted
But I wasn't offended! I liked your post! I thought it was funny! (Edit: I was going to mention how much I'd love to marry Claire Danes and Jennifer Garner, among others )
I'm solidly opposed to deleting posts in most cases; even if I've said something terrible I think it's better to leave it there so I won't forget what I've done.
posted
Amka, that makes no sense. Children raised by divorced parents, widowed parents, test tube babies, army brats, stay at home moms. . . they all are "different" in some way. How exactly do you propose to conduct such a study?
Would be willing to give up no-fault divorce and women in the workplace in order to have a marriage be between a "man and a woman?"
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:We are stuck between a rock and hard place, Bob, on that. To me, that is like experimenting with a drug that may have some harmful side effects. But we'll just give it to everyone because they want it now, without doing the studies first. Need to know more? Those are just delaying tactics.
I already dealt with how this analogy doesn't hold water. Basically, in the case of a new drug, we have ample evidence of past drugs to suggest that there might be unanticipated side effects and thus it would be foolish to rush a new drug to the public without adequate testing. We also have established scientific methods for testing drugs so that there's little disagreement or room to argue about the results of the testing.
In the case of gay marriage, we don't have a history of demonstrating harm to "society in general" when we extend rights to a broader group within our society. Quite the opposite, actually. Again, I call your attention to the now defunct laws against racial intermarriage. Good laws? No. Took too long to get rid of them? Yes. Harm to society? I don't think you'll find any.
quote:This actually happened, but not with a drug. The American Public demanded that the government mandate airbags in cars. The car companies said that they were still conducting studies on safety issues. The American Public said it was a delaying tactic. Do it now. So they did. And they found that airbags could kill children, even in an accident that would otherwise have been minor (such as in a parking lot). In fact, airbags could kill small adults too. People died, because of what the Amercian Public wanted NOW.
Hey, guess what, air bags save more lives than they cost by a VERY wide margin. The people who have died from air bag deployment were: - small stature adults who adjusted the seat to be too close to the steering wheel. - small children riding in the front seat with regular seatbelts. - infants in rear-facing car seats improperly installed in the front seat.
Those deaths are tragic, to be sure, but they aren't the result of a mad rush to implement air bags. They are the result of improper use of airbags despite warnings on seat adjustment and placement of children in vehicles.
quote:I don't think that stress from being a marginal group would necessarily affect the sexuality of the children growing up with homosexual parents.
Says you. I'm just trying to point out that if the study came out showing that kids in homosexual households do less well on ANY metric you care to propose, the problem with drawing any conclusions from that result are legion. You can't eliminate the 3rd variable problem of social inequality having SOME effect. Since you can't measure that effect, and you can't control for it in your experimental design, it's a confounding variable. It's presence makes any study open to question.
In other words, all the studies in the world would not solve this debate unless the results came in showing that such children are actually better off then kids raised in heterosexual-led homes.
This is basic Research Methods stuff. It has nothing to do with social issues in general or gay marriage in particular. It is simply a fact of research in naturalistic environments. You can't control for things that may be very important in determining the outcome of your study. ANY built in bias against one group of a two-group study renders the results of that study open to alternative interpretation.
In other words, why should we wait for a study whose results can't definitively answer the question?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I am obviously in the deleting posts I don't want to claim camp, not because of the damage to my reputation, but if I delete it fast enough, I'll offend fewer people.
I only occasionaly do this in real life - talk before my brain is finished filtering. I usually win one enemy and two friends, but it still isn't a good idea.
I said, basically, that denying polygamy is denying the basic rights of all those people who want to marry all those people.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would homosexuals be happy with legalized civil unions, but not being allowed to adopt or get state or federal monies to help get themselves or a surrogate pregnant?
I am actually more motivated to see gays be able to adopt than gays be able to marry.
You keep comparing adopted kids of gay couples to adopted kids of straight couples. You should be comparing them to non-adopted kids in care of the state. Is nothing truly better than half a loaf?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I had to wait for this to come around full circle, but here goes...
I've heard Mormons argue against same sex unions, and also that the Church didn't condemn polygamy but just no longer allowed it. You see though, there might be a small hole in the whole situation.
The concept of polygamy in the Mormon Church came from a very male-centric point of view. Each of the wives entered into a marriage with their husband, but also joined into a marriage with the whole household, correct? In effect, they weren't just marrying the man, but his family. Isn't this a form of same sex marriage? Even if there were no sexual relations between the women, they were still bound within the family unit by bonds of marriage. (And remember, we don't know and don't have the right to know, if there was any homosexual activity between the multiple wives.)
Looking into it, I tend to see that the Mormon Church may have already set a precedent within their own ranks. Brigham Young's marriages featured 27 women and one man, 21 of them being married and alive at the time of his last marriage in 1868. googled
If you take one man out of the situation, it becomes more than 2 dozen women married together. Does the one man in the equation make it alright? Or is it simply okay because they were just women? Had a founding matron of the LDS church decided to marry a total of 27 men, many in wedlock at the same time, would it have been wrong? And if so, why?
It still comes down to one of the people making a marriage with one person of the opposite sex and literally a marriage with a gaggle of people of the same sex.
But you see, what business is it of mine how Brigham Young and his family got along, or how he and his chose to live their lives? Why should a church leader's life have any bearing on how I see the members of a strong and wonderful faith? Hopefully I won't have to spell out the otherside of the coin.
posted
Actually, I don't think that is the comparison at all. I think they are comparing biological children raised by heterosexuals to adopted children raised by homosexuals.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Maybe they get to pick? Maybe both?
