Gay marriage

[thushan]

I think there is a valid argument - Allowing gay marriage can alter the structure of family. Does being raised by two dads or two mums have any bad consequences? I don't know if it does or not, but there's a point there. Should we then not allow gay married couples to have access to things like IVF? Or would it be better to allow only adoptions (2 dads is better than no dads). I haven't given these points enough thought to formulate an opinion, but on the face of it, i think they constitute valid points

We aren't sure on whether the consequences would be good or bad. We are not sure. And we don't anticipate any disastrous consequences, so we cannot use the precautionary principles here. Hence, we shouldn't be using the "alteration of the family structure" as a valid argument against gay marriage.

[Professor Polonsky]

^ good points, butsource?

American Psychological Association And again, as amicus curiae in the same-sex marriage case
Australian Psychological Society
Wikipedia

[chasej]

To play devil's advocate: Jim Spiegel's argument against gay marriage:

1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).

2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.

3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.

4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.

5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.

6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.

In my opinion  the guy just repeated an argument that is used often but used big words to sound smart.

[chasej]

I think there is a valid argument - Allowing gay marriage can alter the structure of family. Does being raised by two dads or two mums have any bad consequences? I don't know if it does or not, but there's a point there. Should we then not allow gay married couples to have access to things like IVF? Or would it be better to allow only adoptions (2 dads is better than no dads). I haven't given these points enough thought to formulate an opinion, but on the face of it, i think they constitute valid points

Really, if it was true that children needed a heterosexual couple to raise them in order for them to develop properly than shouldn't single parents and the divorce/separation of couples which already have children be banned?

[Greatness]

I have a similar view to abes. I don't think it's 'meant to be' (what is 'meant to be' then?.. ) for the purposes of natural reproduction and the continuation of life itself, I believe heterosexual relationships is how it's 'meant to be', so in that regard I'm against gay marriage. But also, I have no right to tell someone how to live their life, I respect their decisions and they can do as they please. If gay marriage is legalised then so be it, it seems that this is where society is heading and becoming much more socially acceptable.

[spectroscopy]

for the arguement about raising children in gay couples, it has been proven to have a negative effect on children
a quote
 There are eight outcome variables where differences between the children of homosexual parents and married parents were not only present, and favorable to the married parents, but where these findings were statistically significant for both children of lesbian mothers and "gay" fathers and both with and without controls. While all the findings in the study are important, these are the strongest possible ones--virtually irrefutable. Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):
Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
Have lower educational attainment
Report less safety and security in their family of origin
Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
Are more likely to suffer from depression
Have been arrested more often
If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female
The high mathematical standard of "statistical significance" was more difficult to reach for the children of "gay fathers" in this study because there were fewer of them. The following, however, are some additional areas in which the children of lesbian mothers (who represented 71% of all the children with homosexual parents in this study) differed from the IBF children, in ways that were statistically significant in both a direct comparison and with controls. Children of lesbian mothers:
Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
Use marijuana more frequently
Smoke more frequently
Watch TV for long periods more frequently
Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense

source you say?

[1] Mark Regnerus, "How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study," Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 752-770; online at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610
[2] Loren Marks, "Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association's brief on lesbian and gay parenting," Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 735-751; online at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580

[chasej]

for the arguement about raising children in gay couples, it has been proven to have a negative effect on children
a quote
 There are eight outcome variables where differences between the children of homosexual parents and married parents were not only present, and favorable to the married parents, but where these findings were statistically significant for both children of lesbian mothers and "gay" fathers and both with and without controls. While all the findings in the study are important, these are the strongest possible ones--virtually irrefutable. Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):
Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
Have lower educational attainment
Report less safety and security in their family of origin
Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
Are more likely to suffer from depression
Have been arrested more often
If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female
The high mathematical standard of "statistical significance" was more difficult to reach for the children of "gay fathers" in this study because there were fewer of them. The following, however, are some additional areas in which the children of lesbian mothers (who represented 71% of all the children with homosexual parents in this study) differed from the IBF children, in ways that were statistically significant in both a direct comparison and with controls. Children of lesbian mothers:
Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
Use marijuana more frequently
Smoke more frequently
Watch TV for long periods more frequently
Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense

source you say?

[1] Mark Regnerus, "How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study," Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 752-770; online at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610
[2] Loren Marks, "Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association's brief on lesbian and gay parenting," Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 735-751; online at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580

The one by Mark Regnerus: http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/10/30/1110591/regnerus-admits-gay-parenting/?mobile=nc

The one by Loren Marks: Although was published in 2012 is about an APA policy brief written in 2005 and the studies it relied on. I am bothered by the fact it admits omits the last 7 years of social science. That doesn't mean it is wrong but society has changed dramatically since 2005.

[Professor Polonsky]

To play devil's advocate: Jim Spiegel's argument against gay marriage:

1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).

2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.

3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.

4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.

5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.

6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.

Just about all of those premises are false. But let's just start with the first one - marriage is not indispensable. From there on, the whole thing falls.
Now, as for aalexx' assertion that parenting by a same-sex couple has a detrimental effect on children.

Firstly, I'll take the APA and AMA's word over a couple of nobodies any day. Both studies have been discredited.

We've already established that the issues of gay parenting and marriage are separate. No case has been made against same-sex marriage.

In fact, using your logic, same-sex marriage would actually be a positive thing... Give the children the stability of marriage and what not. Unless you actually think that gay people are bad and can't be good parents.

[psyxwar]

Just about all of those premises are false. But let's just start with the first one - marriage is not indispensable. From there on, the whole thing falls.

When Spiegel refers to "heterosexual union" he is not referring to marriage, rather he's referring to heterosexual relationships. He uses the two terms separately in his argument. Heterosexual unions are arguably indispensable for obvious reasons (procreation).

[brenden]

The argument still falls apart when we take apart it's premises.

"Therefore has special social value" - He'd have to first prove that social values are inherent and objective first. The indispensable nature of hetero relationships don't make it socially special. P1 - No.

->won't bother continuing to premise 2.

[psyxwar]

The argument still falls apart when we take apart it's premises.

"Therefore has special social value" - He'd have to first prove that social values are inherent and objective first. The indispensable nature of hetero relationships don't make it socially special. P1 - No.

->won't bother continuing to premise 2.

Why doesn't it? Social value means the value such relationships hold in regards to society right? Without heterosexual unions, there would be no society. The fact that heterosexual unions are necessary for society to exist means that it does have a "special" social value.

[Tomw2]

Why doesn't it? Social value means the value such relationships hold in regards to society right? Without heterosexual unions, there would be no society. The fact that heterosexual unions are necessary for society to exist means that it does have a "special" social value, at least when compared to homosexual unions.

I completely agree with Brendinkles, but am willing to give logical leeway on the "special social value" contention - it all still falls down regardless of whether you agree with statement 1 or not.

To play devil's advocate: Jim Spiegel's argument against gay marriage:
1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).

Putting aside the subtext and relevance issues of the term 'union' in the discussion of 'marriage' rights, perhaps a fair statement.

2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.

What exactly the indispensable means entails is not self evident here, but sure.

3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.

Yes, but what form the "special social recognition" must/should take and what "sanction" must/should entail is not self evident nor objective. "Sanction" in particular. The logic really starts to get murky here.

From this statement, is not self evident that we should do anything other than allow heterosexual "unions" to take place and take steps to ensure that nothing prevents them from taking place.

4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.

And there's the logical fallacy that seemingly cannot be avoided.

"Recognising [gay marriage] as comparable" only constitutes a "rejection of the special value" if you agree that the special value is derived purely from exclusivity of recognition alone.

The "special value" is, according this persons own logic, derived from the exclusive ability of male + female to perpetuate the species.

Its suspiciously unclear why a heterosexual-exclusive marriage right is the sole and only form "special social recognition" can/should take.

5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.

Recognising gay marriage as legitimate does not deny the special social value of heterosexual unions, unless you agree that exclusive marriage rights are the sole and only way we (meaning society) can/should recognise the special value of heterosexual unions.

[Tomw2]

for the arguement about raising children in gay couples, it has been proven to have a negative effect on children

Comparable (and similarly murky) statistics can be cleverly presented to represent all families where the parents are from a minority social/political/religious/cultural or ethnic group or disadvantaged socio-economic background.

Perhaps we should withhold marriage rights from uneducated blue collar workers from a minority ethic background with high amounts of household debt? After all, think of the poor children.

[Tomw2]

Plus, claiming that reproduction confers special social values is a baseless assertion and I don't even know how he got to that point

I think most societies/individuals do place special social value on reproduction and that part alone isn't that contentious.

It's the part where people claim that theres some kind of natural mandate to defend that 'special social value' through legally enforced heterosexual-exclusive marriage. It gets arbitrary at that point.

[ShortBlackChick]

Does the bible say I cant marry my car? Because I want to marry my car. He's the bomb.