Hey! At least they are admitting there are benefits. Sometimes they seem to want to claim there are no benefits, but just burdens which heterosexual couples assume out of pure duty for their country. Yet, somehow, we must legally block same sex couples from taking on those burdens…. because… (Fill in reason. )

jeez, they can’t even be honest about their justifications. and if kids are ONLY healthy and happy in a household headed by a married biomom and biodad, what’s that say about stepfamilies? what’s next, do we only allow marriage for never-marrieds on account of the kids have been ruined because of divorce?

these people are insane.

Like abortion for example … how many “anti-abortion” folks out there would also support moves to limit birth control? The same ones who also support “abstinence only” sex eduction and oppose any other kind?

Dana — I don’t think that is accurate. I don’t think, aside from the religious wackos, anyone would argue that children are not healthy in a loving home. I think they are saying that, all things being equal, a married man and woman has the best chance for creating and raising healthy children and should be encouraged. The problem is the next argument, whether or not providing benefits to ALL families will take away incentives for marriage between a man and woman. Only time and a generation will be able to tell if that is true.

I am personally in favor of Abraham’s model of a family. Matter of fact, I think I will go to New York today to advocate it. Think it will fly? I am not so excited about Nepal’s model.

Are there any studies out there to give us data on why men and women marry under the current legal regime? Perhaps it’s because I’m from the white-bread part of the country, but I don’t know any couples who married for anything other than love.

If the state incentives of “marriage” are non-exsistent and the role of faith continues to decline, then it seems logical that there will no longer be any incentive left to marry under the church or state. Whether people will no longer wish to be with each other forever, out of love, that is another story.

Well, my husband got a vasectomy at Planned Parenthood, and as we were walking out (he was leaning on me, but I suppose it may have looked like I was leaning on him), a picketer yelled “Shame!” at us. So I turned around and explained that we were doing our part to reduce abortion, since he’d just had a vasectomy.

The picketer then said to my husband, “You can reverse those, you know!”

So, at least one.

I don’t know any couples who married for anything other than love.

I think love is the main reason people want to commit to each other, and as such, it is the main reason people marry.

Interestingly, some opponents of same sex marriage suggest the main purpose of marriage is not love and commitment but procreation.

That said, there are some benefits to marriage– although, many of those benefits are only useful to people who love each other and are committed. For example: who’s aching for the right to visit someone they don’t love in the hospital?

American Academy of Pediatrics anyone????
Oh wait, I guess that’s HARD science. Doesn’t count.

@$$holes!

I think they are saying that, all things being equal, a married man and woman has the best chance for creating and raising healthy children and should be encouraged.

There’s no evidence that children do any better when raised by a man and a woman than when raised by two men or two women. Some people may believe they do, but that belief is a matter of prejudice.

The problem is the next argument, whether or not providing benefits to ALL families will take away incentives for marriage between a man and woman.

It’s hard to know what “ALL families” is supposed to mean. The issue here is same-sex marriage. What evidence is there that extending marriage to same-sex couples will take away incentives for marriage between a man and woman?

I have seen those studies also. As for social science studies — see Shannon’s post. Studies can be made to say whatever people want them to say. Nevertheless, given my experience with my children’s friends, I would agree with you.

The first clause I do agree with. All things being equal a married man and woman has the BEST chance for creating healthy children. What I mean is that without medical intervention, a man and a woman have the best chance of creating a child and if they are married that is better than them not being married. Does that mean that we should do so at the expense of other children? Absolutely not. There has to be a better way to encourage marriage and procreation without hurting the children who are not part of that social construct. I don’t know what that is.

“What evidence is there that extending marriage to same-sex couples will take away incentives for marriage between a man and woman?”

Will SSM discourage Judeo-Christian marriage, I don’t think so. From my experience with Scandinavia — civil unions will take away the incentives for marriage. Most of my friends and young family members from a certain Scandinavian country are not married and do not plan to get married. The common mantra: “why would I want to do that?” or “no one gets married in Norway, everyone lives together”. They like the benefits of marriage and would do it if civil unions were not available.

CAVEAT: I know Amp wrote on this earlier. My statements regarding Scandinavia are based on statements from my family and friends over there. I go there once or twice a year for three to four weeks. My opinion is not based on a peer reviewed social study with a specific political agenda.

If the state incentives of “marriage” are non-exsistent

Nice rabbit hole there. There are plenty of state incentives to marry–that’s what all the homos are fussing about. “Civil unions” are a creation of nervous-nellies who don’t like the idea of two men in tuxedos marrying. Seems rather odd to push for gays to have civil unions or no unions, then wail about how nobody will want to marry if we take away the tax breaks.