Lesbian Marriages

[Topflight]

So I was at a bar a couple nights ago, and gay marriage comes up. I was the only one in favor of it, which is fine. But the arguments I had to face were on the level of "if we let THEM get married, what's the next step? People will be marrying their sisters, then their pets."

How do 2+2ers feel about gay marriage?

[nicky g]

I'm trending towards the view that the legal concept of marriage is ridiculous and it should be an entirely religious/personal ceremony with no government involvement. I haven't given it a lot of thought though. In the current circumstances, I don't see why gay people shouldn't be allowed to do it. There's a big difference between marrying another person and an animal. Although my wife has accused me of wanting to marry our cat (all lies, we're just very good friends).

[nicky g]

Ugh I said I'm trending.

[Topflight]

I agree. It should definitely be a religious/personal endeavor. But since there are legal benefits to being married, I believe that any two people who are in love and want to share the rest of their lives together should be able to have these benefits.

The people that argue that it isn't right based on their religion seem to be missing the point, and are somewhat closed minded. No one is asking if they can be married in their church. They just want the world to know they are in love and have the same benefits as any other married couple.

I have been accused of wanting to marry the dog. I spend more time cuddling with the cat, but we are much better at hiding it.

[daryn]

i have already solved this problem. it was easy.


step 1: take the idea of marriage completely out of government and make it a 100% religious thing. if you want to get married, go to a church, a temple, a grass hut, whatever your religion recommends.

step 2: create something called a civil union, or CU.

step 3: make the law such that any benefits a couple previously had because they were married, they now have with a CU.


DONE.


note that even heterosexual married (in a church) couples would then have to go and apply for their CU.

[astroglide]

i think it's fine and anybody that worries about it needs to read/watch the news

[nicky g]

"make the law such that any benefits a couple previously had because they were married, they now have with a CU.


DONE.


note that even heterosexual married (in a church) couples would then have to go and apply for their CU. "

That is how it works in Belgium, although gay couples aren't eleigible for the CU.

[scotnt73]

[ QUOTE ]
i have already solved this problem. it was easy.


step 1: take the idea of marriage completely out of government and make it a 100% religious thing. if you want to get married, go to a church, a temple, a grass hut, whatever your religion recommends.

step 2: create something called a civil union, or CU.

step 3: make the law such that any benefits a couple previously had because they were married, they now have with a CU.


DONE.


note that even heterosexual married (in a church) couples would then have to go and apply for their CU.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is exactly correct. well put d.

civil unions are the answer. they could give the same rights as a marriage.

in the civil rights movement blacks were not fighting for the right to be white. they were fighting for the same rights as whites.

[daryn]

exactly, and the thing is, like i said even hetero couples would need to get the CU, if they wanted the govt. benefits.

EQUALITY BABY!

[MMMMMM]

Why do you suggest that previously married couples should have to go apply for a CU? Why create all that inconvenience and paperwork instead of simply having previously married couples automatically considered as legally having all the benefits of CU?

[tolbiny]

It is absolutly fine if lebians want to get married... But two guys, ewww GROSS!!!!!
As long as they are hot/internet porn type of lesbians....

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
i have already solved this problem. it was easy.


step 1: take the idea of marriage completely out of government and make it a 100% religious thing. if you want to get married, go to a church, a temple, a grass hut, whatever your religion recommends.

step 2: create something called a civil union, or CU.

step 3: make the law such that any benefits a couple previously had because they were married, they now have with a CU.


DONE.


note that even heterosexual married (in a church) couples would then have to go and apply for their CU.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its to bad its not this easy /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
Why do you suggest that previously married couples should have to go apply for a CU? Why create all that inconvenience and paperwork instead of simply having previously married couples automatically considered as legally having all the benefits of CU?

[/ QUOTE ]


sure you could do that. i don't think i mentioned previously married couples, but i should have. yeah they could be automatically given a CU, if they want.

i really was just referring to new hetero and ho.mo couples.

[Topflight]

Too bad this type of logic got me nowhere at the bar. The only thing these people know is that gays are bad, and should not be allowed to marry under any circumstances. It is lessons the meaning of the word marriage that they use to define their relationship. It isn't Christian, it shouldn't be allowed.

[B Dids]

http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a286/a286_b_42.jpg

[scotnt73]

[ QUOTE ]
Too bad this type of logic got me nowhere at the bar. The only thing these people know is that gays are bad, and should not be allowed to marry under any circumstances. It is lessons the meaning of the word marriage that they use to define their relationship. It isn't Christian, it shouldn't be allowed.

[/ QUOTE ]

i know what your saying. its people like this that disgust me as well. i had an argument with my wife the other day about this(her family is religious. what they are really saying is that thier religion taught them that gay people are bad and shouldnt be allowed to have benefits because the kindly magical spirit they worship told them to hate fags.

[Lazymeatball]

So Daryn, under your ruling, any 2 people are allowed to get this CU, what's to prevent me from getting a CU with my roommate for tax benefits? Or why can't I get a CU with my brother, we are both in love in a non-sexual fraternal kind of way and want the world to know it? Am I allowed to get a CU with my mom, my cousin, why stop at one person, why can't I have state sanctioned bigamy?

It would be nice if it was this simple to just appease homosexuals here, but then which minority group will start crying next, demanding equal rights to do whatever nonconventional thing it wants.

I maintain that homosexuals have the same right to marriage as any other citizen of the US, they just choose to waive that right in lieu of their lifestyle.

This really should have been posted in the Politics forum.

[astroglide]

why can't you get a CU with a female friend to get tax benefits? there is no added loophole.

they just choose to waive that right

choose. right.

[tek]

Marriages shouldn't have to be approved by any religion, unless you are a member of a cult (like Scientology, in which case you're screwed no matter what you do).

Marriages also shouldn't have to approved or regulated by Big Brother, but guess what? Marriages are quasi-corporations and are thus fair game for government regulation. Don't kill the messenger...

[Lazymeatball]

I'll give you kudos on the male female tax evasion point.

I don't know what you mean by your sarcastic "choose. right" comment. Please elaborate.

[astroglide]

your statement declares that people CHOOSE to be homosexuals (as opposed to being born or becoming one by environment)

[Lazymeatball]

You misunderstood me, I simply stated that they choose not to marry people of the opposite sex, as is their right.

I'll leave the matter of origins of homosexuality for another day.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
Marriages shouldn't have to be approved by any religion

[/ QUOTE ]



how dumb is this statement? marriage was and is a sacrament of the church first. i'm not even a religious guy, i'm just saying, that's what it is.

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
But the arguments I had to face were on the level of "if we let THEM get married, what's the next step? People will be marrying their sisters, then their pets."

[/ QUOTE ]

Gay/Lesbian marriages are legal in Canada. Marrying sisters, pets, and whatever other affectionate objects is just being plain ridiculous. I'm not a religious person so I don't object to gay marriages. However, I am true believer in the sanctity of marriage and if gay/lesbians want to get married and put their vows up for spiritual bonding then it should be bonded just like any other marriage.

[vulturesrow]

The reason that marriage is rewarded by the government is because a) they produce children and b) there are numerous studies that show that children that grow in the "standard" household tend to do better than those in other circumstances. Also many of the "benefits" of being married can be arranged through simple legal procedures. Not all, but most. I dont consider myself to be an ultrareligious person and I dont think homosexuals are "bad people." I just believe the social benefits of keeping marriage as is outweigh the benefits of allowing marriage to be defined otherwise.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason that marriage is rewarded by the government is because a) they produce children and b) there are numerous studies that show that children that grow in the "standard" household tend to do better than those in other circumstances. Also many of the "benefits" of being married can be arranged through simple legal procedures. Not all, but most. I dont consider myself to be an ultrareligious person and I dont think homosexuals are "bad people." I just believe the social benefits of keeping marriage as is outweigh the benefits of allowing marriage to be defined otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%. The government rewards standard marriage for a very good reason. Unless statistics show gay couples can raise as healthy, successful, and productive children as married couples, I do not see a reason to reward gay unions.

Let them have their Union, but tax cuts and other reward based benifits should stay with married couples.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%. The government rewards standard marriage for a very good reason. Unless statistics show gay couples can raise as healthy, successful, and productive children as married couples, I do not see a reason to reward gay unions.

Let them have their Union, but tax cuts and other reward based benifits should stay with married couples.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bullshit. You are denying them basic rights that people can get just because of their sexual preference.

----

I think that marriage carries a lot of symbolic value to the heterosexual crazy religious right, and so I don't think that homosexuals should be allowed to "get married". They should however be entitiled to ALL the benfits of a married couple who love eachother and have promised themselves to eachother for the rest of their lives provided that they enter into some sort of "civil union" type thing. To do anything less would be discrimination

[vulturesrow]

First off, they arent basic rights. Where is marriage mentioned or implied in the Constitution? Marriage was recognized by the government to be beneficial to society for the reasons that I mentioned in my post. Thus the government chose to recognize and reward people for getting married and having children. These social benefits have been confirmed by numerous studies. As I stated most of the "rights" conferred by marriage can be arranged through simple legal procedures.

[astroglide]

allow me to extend a sincere FUUUUUUUUUUUUUU** YOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUU to anybody who opposes gay adoption. i am very familiar with the foster care circuit, and there is surely little in this world that is worse than bouncing around it. anybody that will love a kid and can (even barely) provide for them should get a quick pass. i would imagine that gay couples would be more willing to entertain the idea of post-infant adoption (which is extremely rare, at that point you're basically screwed). i'm seriously not kidding when i say i would gladly ruin anybody's life in any way i could possibly get away with if they stood in the way of a decent gay couple adopting.

[liquidboss]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless statistics show gay couples can raise as healthy, successful, and productive children as married couples, I do not see a reason to reward gay unions.

Let them have their Union, but tax cuts and other reward based benifits should stay with married couples.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about they should be allowed tax breaks unless statistics show gay couples don't raise healthy, sucessful, and productive children?

[cnfuzzd]

i respect you more and more everyday astro....


peace

john nickle

[lu_hawk]

" b) there are numerous studies that show that children that grow in the "standard" household tend to do better than those in other circumstances"

links to real scientific studies please? i don't believe this for a second.

[wacki]

Astroglide, you are misunderstanding me.

Single women and men can adopt!
It's legal in every U.S. state.

Have I ever said we should take away rights of gay people?

Reread what I said very carefully.

[liquidboss]

[ QUOTE ]
links to real scientific studies please? i don't believe this for a second.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hear hear, I would like to see real data on this. People like to throw around that children in gay households are worse off but I've never seen anything to back these claims up.

[vulturesrow]

Here are some studies. Check the endnotes, pretty much all the cited studies can be found via Google.

web page (http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/Do%20Mothers%20and%20Fathers%20Matter.pdf)
web page (http://www.marriagemovement.org/WhyMarriageMatters.html)
web page (http://www.marriagewatch.org/publications/nobasis.htm)

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
The reason that marriage is rewarded by the government is because a) they produce children and b) there are numerous studies that show that children that grow in the "standard" household tend to do better than those in other circumstances. Also many of the "benefits" of being married can be arranged through simple legal procedures. Not all, but most. I dont consider myself to be an ultrareligious person and I dont think homosexuals are "bad people." I just believe the social benefits of keeping marriage as is outweigh the benefits of allowing marriage to be defined otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%. The government rewards standard marriage for a very good reason. Unless statistics show gay couples can raise as healthy, successful, and productive children as married couples, I do not see a reason to reward gay unions.

Let them have their Union, but tax cuts and other reward based benifits should stay with married couples.

[/ QUOTE ]

i once thought that no matter which side of the argument a person was on, pro-gay marriage or anti-gay marriage, at least we could all agree that gay couples deserve the same rights, as far as tax breaks, etc.

i was wrong. wow.

[lu_hawk]

the first link i couldn't open my acrobat froze up.

the second link makes no mention of gay marriage.

the third link is truly funny because it is a conservative website that references scientific studies that say it doesn't matter whether or not a child lives in a same sex household but then says that there are flaws in all of the studies therefore none of the conclusions are valid. try again none of these do anything to further your point.

[vulturesrow]

Try the first linke again, good endnotes on that one. Agreed on the second link. I was trying to show something on the benefits of marriage in general. As for the third link, if you want to be silly about it fine. It quotes these studies because they are held up as proof that same sex marriages are the equivalent but yet they have all significant flaws in their methodology. Like I said, check endnote and try doing some objective reading on your own. I would think being educated on both sides of the argument would be a good thing. I have put a lot of thought into how I feel about this issue.

[astroglide]

the statement was not directed specifically at you, i fly off a bit when people mention anything that inhibits adoption. it's for you if that's your position and anybody else. i still think you're a good guy otherwise. single men/women can adopt but it's WAY harder for gay ones. i'm rereading and it still seems to be leaned toward the way i responded too. was it your point that they can't procreate? i think it's an awesome thing that they adopt if they want kids. so there's a family. and there's a 100% chance that they wanted the kid, no accidents or bad timing in adoption.

fwiw i'm against any kind of benefits for anyone who gets married. i say rip out the benefits and let everybody do it. but if the benefits stay, give that to everybody too.

not allowing gay people to marry is effectively taking away their rights (and there are a lot of them). http://gaylife.about.com/cs/mentalhealth1/a/benefits.htm

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
I have put a lot of thought into how I feel about this issue

[/ QUOTE ]

who gives a [censored] about how you feel about it? did you consider how the kids feel? they would rather be adopted by anybody that gives a [censored] instead of rotting in foster care. the system produces miserable, bad kids. you would also not believe how much abuse there is in foster homes.

[Cerril]

You'll run into two types of people in this situation who aren't in favor of gay marriage (and some subtypes)

The first wants to define marriage a certain way because their religion (or morality) defines it a certain way. Many of these people have no problem with gay people 'per se' but just don't want them to be married. The idea of civil unions aren't abhorrent, though some would like to do away with marriage -and- unions as civil institutions entirely and leave the whole thing in the domain of the church. For the most part it's a political and social issue for these people, and you can have a discussion (though likely you'll have to end with some sort of disagreement) - they'll also generally not mind an equality of rights.

The other sort are the ones who are vehemently opposed to homosexuality in all respects. These people really can't be reasoned with unless they're reasonable about their faith and/or religion. Many religious people treat their religion as fact and not to be questioned, so having a reasonable discussion is counter to what they believe - there's really no point.

Sometimes this second group can at least be made to understand that forcing a religion on someone else is wrong, but not everyone even falls in that category. With them you'd better just grit your teeth and bear it.

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
a) they produce children and b) there are numerous studies that show that children that grow in the "standard" household tend to do better than those in other circumstances.

[/ QUOTE ]

In today's world where the biological advances through technology allow for artificial insemination and physical birth through a 3rd party female (or donor sperm through a male for lesbians), reproduction of children does not always have to be done the old fashion way of man hump woman.

Most households are NOT by what society defines as normal. Most families are dysfunctional to some degree. What really defines a healthy family? So a man and woman gets together, marries and procreates. And for this they should be rewarded by the government? But what about the responsibility of the parents to properly raise their child and guide them. If most families were normal, then why do most families live below the middle median income line in North America?

Parenting has nothing to do with man-woman, woman-woman, man-man relationships. It's about knowing how to be a parent and raising a child, guiding them through life properly.

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless statistics show gay couples can raise as healthy, successful, and productive children as married couples, I do not see a reason to reward gay unions.


[/ QUOTE ]

And I suppose all heterosexual couples have kids that turn out to be healthy, successful and productive as well? If so, why are there so many juvenile delinquents? What correlation is there proven that gay/lesbian couples actually cannot properly raise a child just the way a heterosexual couple would?

[vulturesrow]

astroglide, where did I say I am against allowing gay people adopt children? I am actually not against that, nor am I totally opposed to the concept of civil unions. We are bleeding over into other issues and I was specifically referring to gay marriage when I responded to this thread in the first place. I do appreciate the fact that no one has tried to paint me as some sort gay hating bigot.

[wacki]

Most of the rights on About.com can be achieved legally. I would never stand in the way of one gay person trying to take care of another gay person.

Basically my views are like this:

1) Marriage is between a man and a woman and it should stay that way.

2) One person (even if they are gay) should not be denied the right to take care of someone he/she cares about. To do otherwise would be cruel to someone that cannot control what he or she is/feels.

3) Laws regarding Unions and Marriages should be made on a separate basis. That doesn't mean that they have to be vastly different, that just means laws regarding marriage should be directed at marriage. Laws regarding unions should be directed at unions.

[ QUOTE ]
fwiw i'm against any kind of benefits for anyone who gets married. i say rip out the benefits and let everybody do it. but if the benefits stay, give that to everybody too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly feel that marriage is a sacred thing and should not be taken lightly. The government promotes marriage, as vulturesrow points out, for a good reason. I do not think it should stop doing so.

If statistics prove that gay couples give children a better environment than gay singles, then I am ok with giving the couples breaks to better help them raise that child. Still laws regarding marriage should be separate than union laws, even if they happen to be the same.

Marriage comes from religious origins and nobody should desecrate anyone elses religion. At the very least not with something as sacred as marriage. Marriage is not a part of the constitution, it is not a right.

I hope you think this is more than fair. I just think marriage and unions aren't the same for a multitude of reasons and should be treated as such. That doesn't mean I would deny anyone the right to care for anyone else.

[astroglide]

i'm fine with calling it a civil union as long as it has completely equal rights. the promotion of marriage as it specfically pertains to having children is a little preposterous to me. we don't have any problems getting people to have kids in this country, and like i said gay couples will adopt and when they do it's a 100% chance that they wanted the kid. it wasn't a mistake, and they PAY tons of money to do it. adopters really want kids. if civil unions were universal and there wasn't rampant discrimination against gays for adopting, the kids are the one that would benefit.

[vulturesrow]

Lawrence,

I am well aware of the implications of reproductive technology. Just being able to do something doesnt make it a smart or desireable thing to do. Yes all families are dysfunctional to some degree? So what? I never their was a such thing as a perfect family. But the two parent family with a mother and father is the best model we have. As for your question on the government rewarding procreation, that is indeed part of the reason why. Im not sure why you are bringing up income. But most families dont live below the median income. Roughly 50% do and roughly 50% are above. That is why it is the median.

[astroglide]

the obvious point that you are missing is that the kids who are in the foster system will remain there unless adopted, and extending those benefits to gay couples who wish to adopt would guaranteeably result in a happier, more productive environment than the system. if you want to compare statistics, try doing it on gay parents who went through the pain and cost of adoption vs foster parents who had the children randomly assigned to them. it's not taking kids away from a perfect mom/dad/money combination because the system is absolutely overloaded with kids. we always need adopters.

[vulturesrow]

Astro,

did I not write that I support gays being able to adopt? and that I am not necessarily opposed to civil unions. If you adopt a child, you are entitled to benefits that come with having a child. You can claim a dependent, possibly be eligible for EITC, etc. Those arent benefits for being married, they are benefits for having a child. My opposition is strictly to marriage as it stands right now being extended to same sex couples. I was merely trying to point out that this institution is a desireable part of society as it is right now and it is rewarded accordingly. I dont care to see it diluted to the point of being meaningless. Also be careful in assuming that all same sex adopting parents would be a great situation necessarily. There are certain inherent difficulties in being the child of a same sex couples. Also the divorce rate for same sex couples in countries that have this is higher than opposite sex couples. Still I dont disagree that being adopted by such couples wouldnt be beneficial to many children stuck in the foster care system. Also I dont see any reason to assume that same sex couples would seek out infant children at a lesser rate than heterosexual couples. I think it will still be hard for children past that state of their life to be adopted.

[Topflight]

"there are numerous studies that show that children that grow in the "standard" household tend to do better than those in other circumstances"

If "other circumstances" is talking about two loving same sex parents, then I'm going to have to intuitively disagree and throw in the insufficient sample size card.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
"there are numerous studies that show that children that grow in the "standard" household tend to do better than those in other circumstances"

If "other circumstances" is talking about two loving same sex parents, then I'm going to have to intuitively disagree and throw in the insufficient sample size card.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually not many studies show this particular comparison, that is opposite sex parents vs. same sex. The post that you quote was speaking to why the government rewards marriage in general. Other circumstances refer mostly to single parent families, families with stepparents etc. Their are studies out there regarding the effects of same sex marriage. They all contain significant methodological flaws which makes it hard to point to them as any sort of evidence. However, many studies do show the benefits of having a parent of the opposite sex to help development in the area of intersex relationships. Anecdotally speaking, as one who grew up in a single parent family, my younger sister struggled with many issues and most of her problems arose from her relationships with men. My road was much easier and I have to believe that in some large part, the lack of a male authority to interact with contributed to her problems.

I do not regard same sex parents as bad and the traditional family model as good. I look at on a continuoum from least desireable to most. I wouldnt place same sex parents on the bottom end of that scale. But I wouldnt put them near the top either.

[Topflight]

Right. But all situations being considered, it seems like they should be in the upper half.

[vulturesrow]

I dont necessarily disagree with that. Itd be nice to have more statistical data.

[astroglide]

why exactly are you talking about statistics on same sex vs opposite sex parents again? for the purposes of this conversation, it's same sex vs foster care.

when opposite sex parents have a kid they either procreate or adopt. when same sex parents have a kid they adopt. this helps everybody, as it is better than foster care. they are not taking children from opposite sex couples.

[vulturesrow]

Wrong. The conversation started as a question about reasons for opposing gay marriages. The issue of gay adoption was brought up by you, on which I said I am not against adoption by gay parents and I agree would in most cases probably be better then leaving them in the foster care system.

Just because I agree that having same sex parents is somewhere in the middle of desireable family structures doesnt change my feelings on allowing gay marriage.

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason that marriage is rewarded by the government is because a) they produce children and b) there are numerous studies that show that children that grow in the "standard" household tend to do better than those in other circumstances...I just believe the social benefits of keeping marriage as is outweigh the benefits of allowing marriage to be defined otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

your opposition to gay marriage was reasoned by stating that OS couples procreate and that their environment is rated to be the most healthy. SS couples will adopt, and the kids they adopt will be saved from the foster care system. if your only reason to oppose gay marriage is that OS couples will have the healthiest environments for children. that actually supports gay marriage, because the reasoning is based on what's best for the kids. gay marriages are. adopted kids are not in foster care. SS parents are an upgrade.

i would be willing to accept "god doesn't like it". your stated reasoning is self-conflicting and invalid. you are wrong, and so is anybody that agrees with you.

[vulturesrow]

My argument is wrong only if I completely oppose any form of a SS union or that I dont support SS adoption. I dont. Civil unions are certainly reasonable. However the government certainly has reason to support what data has shown to date to be the most healthy environment for children to grow up in. Let me say once again, yes I agree that SS adoption is a good option. However, marriage isnt a right. It is a social good that has its basis in religion. Thus another reason for restricting the definition of marriage is that it would represent government intrusion into religion. Another reason is that countries that support SS marriage show a major drop in birthrate, some at levels that are unable to sustain their current population. All these factors go into my assertion that OS marriage represent a social good that government has incentive to reward. As I have also pointed out, most benefits of marriage that people cite are easily obtainable through simple legal procedures.

I will also say that you see gay adoption as a panacea for the foster care system. Do you think all SS couples will make good parents? Do you think that SS couples will have a lesser propensity to adopt infant children which as you pointed out is a major problem with the adoption system as it stands now?

[wacki]

I don't see how his point b is wrong. If the standard household is statistically the best environment, whats self-conflicting and invalid about rewarding, and thereby promoting, the environments on a relative scale?

[Topflight]

Why do people volunteer to foster care as oppossed to adopting. I don't know much about the system, I knew a family that had foster children coming and going. They would have a few at a time and the kids would come and go.

Is there some kind of benefit to doing this. Or is it that the people just get bored with the same kids all the time. It seems like if you are going to foster kids for years and years, why not just adopt one or two.

Do kids jump from foster home to foster home? And if so, why are they moved around so much?

Also, do we still have orphanages?

I am very ignorant on the adoption/foster/orphan situation. Can someone give me a rundown on how it works?

[astroglide]

SS marriages/unions also represent a social good that the government has incentive to reward. adoption by anybody (gay or straight, couple or single) is much better in general than the foster care system. i have not stated it to be a panacea, and the "all SS couples" question is so idiotic i'm not going to address it. SS couples already do adopt infants less (as well as seek more out of country adoptions) because deference is given to OS couples in the selection process (something i have already pointed out).

[astroglide]

something on a relative scale would certainly be a step up from the absolute nothing that they get now. if it is addressed by scale, though, hard and abundant statistics will need to be provided.

[vulturesrow]

That incentive doesnt have to be at the same level that the most desireable, as wacki pointed out. I dont think that my question was idiotic. I would guess that their would be a roughly equal percentage of people who are SS couples that arent suited to be parents but make it through the adoption process. SS couples by your evidence suggest only that they adopt non-infant children because they are forced to do so. So if they did reach equal status in the adoption process there is no reason to believe they would adopt older children preferentially. Also, what good is it for our country to have people seek out of country adoption vice adopting American children that are already stuck in our foster care system?

[citanul]

People volunteer for foster care for a variety of reasons.

Many do it because they love children, their children are away, etc.

However, I'd have to say that more than that number do it solely for money. You get a certain amount of money for each kid, and if you care for the kid with less than that amount, you get to keep the rest. This is where the bulk of "bad" foster homes come in. People just signing up because they want the extra $/mo.

I'm pretty sure that when you choose to adopt, rather than to be a foster home, you stop getting possibly all, but at least most, of that money. So people who have foster kids as a career obviously don't do this.

Foster kids jump from home to home quite a bit. Kids can be removed from the home at any time by the state (since they are wards of the state) for pretty much any reason. The bulk of those reasons being that the state decides that home to no longer be suitable, safe, or sufficient. Additionally, a foster parent can at any time serve 14 day notice to the state, saying they have 14 days to remove the kid from their care.

I'm not sure about orphanages, but we do have children's shelters.

citanul

[ QUOTE ]
Why do people volunteer to foster care as oppossed to adopting. I don't know much about the system, I knew a family that had foster children coming and going. They would have a few at a time and the kids would come and go.

Is there some kind of benefit to doing this. Or is it that the people just get bored with the same kids all the time. It seems like if you are going to foster kids for years and years, why not just adopt one or two.

Do kids jump from foster home to foster home? And if so, why are they moved around so much?

Also, do we still have orphanages?

I am very ignorant on the adoption/foster/orphan situation. Can someone give me a rundown on how it works?

[/ QUOTE ]

[astroglide]

i did not state or imply that gay adoption will magically fix all problems with foster care, and asking if i think all SS adopters would be good parents was idiotic and dishonest. ask a real question if you want but don't waste my time.

as far as non-infants, most people prefer babies just like most people prefer kittens and puppies. i think the people who take the older ones are the ones with the biggest hearts. i don't see how out of country adoptions are good for us. i don't think they are, and fixing our adoption system (less red tape, lowering cost, less gay prohibition, etc) would go a long way toward resolving issues with our own kids.

[citanul]

Well, I think several people in this thread have taken issue with the assertion that the standard household is the statistically best environment, citing "merely" the complete lack of evidence by this idea's proponent.

What I find horrid about this line of reasoning is the following:

People shouldn't be having kids or not having kids because of the tax breaks, etc. Incentivizing people to have kids just because they are in a certain situation is just plain silly in my mind. If you want the kid, you shouldn't have to be incentivized to have him, you're reward is HAVING A KID YOU LOVE. I'm pretty sure that the whole successful procreation of the species went along pretty well before the invention of tax benefits to the parents. Meanwhile, the tax benefits for parents HAS had noticable horrible effects on our society. Namely, the incredibly poor on welfare often have lots of kids that they are incapable of properly caring for in order to get a fatter check from the government.

Someone choosing NOT to have a kid doesn't hurt society (in general). Someone choosing TO have a kid can. Incentivizing people to have kids for any reason in our society then, is just plain wrong.

citanul

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how his point b is wrong. If the standard household is statistically the best environment, whats self-conflicting and invalid about rewarding, and thereby promoting, the environments on a relative scale?

[/ QUOTE ]

[vulturesrow]

Apologies to you for coming on too strong on my first point. I only wanted to point out SS adopters bring many of the same potential problems that OS adopters do. The only real plus I see is that they give a bigger pool of adopters which is admittedly a plus.

On your second point, I pretty much agree. I have relatives that adopted two children (my cousins) in the states and it was a very expensive and tedious process for them. In fact they established residence in Florida near us both times they adopted because it was just easier.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I think several people in this thread have taken issue with the assertion that the standard household is the statistically best environment, citing "merely" the complete lack of evidence by this idea's proponent.


[/ QUOTE ]

I posted several studies with extensive endnotes to other studies. If people dont want to do their homework, its not my problem. To just dismiss my arguments because you dont believe them or they dont match up with your beliefs is dishonest. If you care enough about the issue, then get educated on both sides of the story.

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile, the tax benefits for parents HAS had noticable horrible effects on our society. Namely, the incredibly poor on welfare often have lots of kids that they are incapable of properly caring for in order to get a fatter check from the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a complete strawman. That points to problems with our welfare system, which has been reformed, though not completely. Moreover people in that situation have a number of social factors that contribute to that situation, one of which is the breakdown of traditional family structure and values.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I think several people in this thread have taken issue with the assertion that the standard household is the statistically best environment, citing "merely" the complete lack of evidence by this idea's proponent.


[/ QUOTE ]

I posted several studies with extensive endnotes to other studies. If people dont want to do their homework, its not my problem. To just dismiss my arguments because you dont believe them or they dont match up with your beliefs is dishonest. If you care enough about the issue, then get educated on both sides of the story.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do admit to not reading the studies you posted. I merely read others' reponses to them, and your subsequent post in which I believe you admitted that the articles didn't have anything to do with your point. End notes do not equal studies. If you are saying there are links in the endnotes, or studies cited there, repost the relevant information.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile, the tax benefits for parents HAS had noticable horrible effects on our society. Namely, the incredibly poor on welfare often have lots of kids that they are incapable of properly caring for in order to get a fatter check from the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a complete strawman. That points to problems with our welfare system, which has been reformed, though not completely. Moreover people in that situation have a number of social factors that contribute to that situation, one of which is the breakdown of traditional family structure and values.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a strawman at all. I cited in this particular quote, one several reasons that giving tax breaks to people for procreating is silly in my mind. Your pullout quote choice is really so incredibly disingenuous it's disgusting. I made several points about why giving people tax breaks for having kids is bad for society. You picked one and ran with it saying it was a weak, off topic argument. The welfare thing is just one factor.

How about this: Regardless of welfare, if you give someone a tax break for producing a child, they will be incentivized to produce a child they don't otherwise want?

How about responding to the actual meat of a post instead of just one side point?

citanul

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
I do admit to not reading the studies you posted. I merely read others' reponses to them, and your subsequent post in which I believe you admitted that the articles didn't have anything to do with your point. End notes do not equal studies. If you are saying there are links in the endnotes, or studies cited there, repost the relevant information.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for your honesty about not having read them. I referenced the endnote because they provide other studies that are for the most part easily accessible via Google. I was trying to give people a starting point. I would also note that exactly one persone replied that they had actually linked those. I'm sorry, but I dont have the time or the inclination to post a mountain of links for people. Start with what I provided, search for the cited studies, and you will find a plethora of information on both sides of the argument.

[ QUOTE ]
This is not a strawman at all. I cited in this particular quote, one several reasons that giving tax breaks to people for procreating is silly in my mind. Your pullout quote choice is really so incredibly disingenuous it's disgusting. I made several points about why giving people tax breaks for having kids is bad for society. You picked one and ran with it saying it was a weak, off topic argument. The welfare thing is just one factor.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said:

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile, the tax benefits for parents HAS had noticable horrible effects on our society. Namely, the incredibly poor on welfare often have lots of kids that they are incapable of properly caring for in order to get a fatter check from the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was the only concrete example you provided on tax benefits having horrible effects on society. I didnt question a side argument, I questioned your primary argument.

[ QUOTE ]
How about this: Regardless of welfare, if you give someone a tax break for producing a child, they will be incentivized to produce a child they don't otherwise want?

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. I think the responsibilites of child raising are a bigger disincentive than what the government uses for incentive. Is this always true? PRobably not, most things arent ever 100% one way or the other. But Id say most of the time its right. I think what the government provides is an incentive for people that want to have children, but are worried about the cost of doing so. Again, this probably isnt always true but I think most of the time it is. Note that I dont disagree with you in that having children should a primary incentive in and of itself. But government does have reasons for promoting marriage as it is for a variety of reasons.