Ten Reasons Same-Sex Marriage Is Wrong
| January 15th, 2006This has been going around… I got it from Shades of Grey.
1. Being gay is not natural. And as you know Americans have always rejected unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because, as you know, a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed. The sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
January 15th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
It originates from GatorGSA, Valentine’s Day 2004. From my journal.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
January 15th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
When I took American Government in high school, I was assigned to research a controversial issue and list fifty pros and fifty cons. I choose legalization of gay marriage, and had a hard time finding cons. My list ended up being pathetically undersized and resembling the above, although the quotes I found were in all seriousness.
This comment was written by Lake Desire.Report this comment to the moderators
January 15th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
11. Gay marriage is a privilege. Gays are already allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, and advocates of gay marriage would ban heterosexuals from marrying someone of the same sex.
;)
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
January 15th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Thing is, there are people who could read down the list nodding along and thinking ‘that’s right’ and ‘that’s the way it *should* be . . .”
This comment was written by Dan S..Report this comment to the moderators
January 15th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Re #10: Well, since you mention it, we really haven’t adapted very well to cars; we’ve let them foul our air and deform our cities. But I don’t think same-sex marriage would have a similar effect.
This comment was written by Q. Pheevr.Report this comment to the moderators
January 15th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
I found it via LabKat. It would be the funniest thing I’ve seen in ages, if it weren’t that some people actually believe that sh…stuff.
This comment was written by Tapetum.Report this comment to the moderators
January 15th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
LOL!!
This comment was written by Rachel S.Report this comment to the moderators
January 15th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
12. It would lead to polygamy, which is expressly forbidden by the Bible.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 15th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
#13. Gay marriage would lead to an increased number of divorces, which is bad, because gay men and lesbians can’t stay married forever, just like straight couples can’t stay married forever.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 15th, 2006 at 10:54 pm
#14. It says gays are bad in an ambiguous passage from Leviticus. And the book of Leviticus is the source of all laws. That’s why it’s illegal to eat geckos.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 6:31 am
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed. The sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
This one makes me laugh every time I see it. The ‘destruction of the sanctity of marriage’ is one of the most commonly spouted claims. While intended to be totally humorous, this point is actually devastatingly effective in countering that argument.
This comment was written by Le Driver.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 6:34 am
OMG, and I just had a gecko for breakfast…
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 6:42 am
1. Being gay is not natural. And as you know Americans have always rejected unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. 2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people [...]Continue reading at Alas, a blog … posted 2:15 pm at Alas, a blog
This comment was written by feminist blogs.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 11:05 am
Good humor. I agree with Le Driver - the “Britiny Spears” reason was especially funny. I also like additional reason #13 from FurryCatHerder - we straight right-wing religious zealot republicans sure don’t have any kind of monopoly on “good” marriages. What’s the divorce rate in the church these days?
I suppose I have to at least take a token exception to one of these considering my particular bent. OK, here goes.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
I would never say never of course, but I still would contend that generically the best environment for the development of a child is one with both a male and female role model. Of course, the best best is one where daddy goes to work 8 hours a day and mommy stays home to raise jr. Oops, did I say that out loud?
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 11:45 am
Gengwall, if you didn’t exist it would be necessary to invent you.
Why? Seriously. Why is that better, and what evidence do you adduce that it’s better, than one where mommy and daddy work in the fields all day while grandma watches the kids? Or one where daddy works days and mommy works nights (or vice versa) and each parent cares for the kids while the other is working? Or one where daddy and mommy run a small business together downstairs and the kids are either helping in the store or upstairs doing their homework and watching the younger ones?
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 11:47 am
Forgot to add: feel free to substitute “mommy and mommy” or “daddy and daddy” for “mommy and daddy” in any of the above scenarios.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 11:53 am
Good grief Lu, it was tongue in cheek. Just pushing some buttons. Iguess it worked. But, since you brought it up, I will comment on one of your scenarios:
My wife and I had this situation for a while. It sucked. It was certainly not a very good way to bring up baby and it was especially detrimental to “mommy and daddy alone time”.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
I suppose it’s just as well I’m not American.
This comment was written by Nigel A. Gunn.I can do all of those things, if I choose, without fear of guilt or recrimination.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
I didn’t argue that any of the above was an ideal scenario. It does seem to me, though, that they would all do a great job of modeling the message that everyone pitches in and when life gives you lemons you make the best lemonade you can.
Since your assertion that kids do better with one parent of each sex (for a total of two) does seem to be serious, can you offer arguments and/or evidence for that?
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
It was serious but not meant to start an argument
I’m am surprised that anyone would think otherwise. Certainly a dual sex perspective on the world has more to offer a developing child than a single sex perspective.
Oh, I forgot, feminists think there is no fundimental difference between the sexes (other than anatomical ones) and everything we “perceive” as being differences is merely environmental. Well, if that’s true, then I see your point. Any child would only need one of these uinisex beings and they would have everything they need for proper social and psychological development.
You know, I really didn’t want to get into a heavy discussion on this. I thought the piece was funny, That was really my only point.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
um..
There are two sides to every story and on the liberal side, it’s always how the other side is stupid and evil…. right?
Oh how funny…
“Britteny Spears” Hardy Har Har.. How clever.
For everything in this world you can find an example of what you need to find an example of… that is a very transparent one.
I USED to be against gay marriage.
Mostly because to me it is unnatural and disgusting (just my opinion, dont get all ruffled)
My mind has changed however, since recent “partner” benefits have become law.
These benefits like full health insurance (important) and hospital visitation (not as important) are “free” for anyone who just needs to claim to be gay.
Example:
I am married, but if I just had a “girlfiend”, she would be eligible for ZERO of my work related benefits, while the “boyfriend” of a gay man would be eligible for ALL work related benefits. (by law)
Is that “fair”?
Just claiming to be gay enables your “partner” to have full benefits?
So, screw it I say, let them get married and divorced and lead miserable lives just like the straight people.
In the process of getting “equal treatment” the Gay agenda has succeeded in getting unequal treatment (to their favor)
Why does everyone have to tell everyone else their sexual preference anyway? Why is so important for a gay person to tell everyone else they are gay?
This comment was written by eric.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Why am I suddenly reminded of all the Christians who argue that the US constitution/laws are based upon the 10 commandments?
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
gengwall, all (serious) research has shown that there are no real difference between kids brought up in a heterosexual or a homosexual household, all other things being equal.
What’s important is how well functioning the household is - a stable household is better for the kid than an unstable household. Single parent households seems to be less good than a household with two adults in parent-roles, but again, the important part is how dysfunctional the household is. A stable single parent is much better than a dysfunctional two parent household.
Communities doesn’t seem to hold any specific advantages, but this might be due to the fact that such households are often quite dysfunctional, or at least somewhat unstable.
All this research has been publicly debated in Denmark, during the debate about wether homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt, which they can’t so far (sinlge adults can, on the other hand, adopt).
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
I am saddened by how much time and energy is spent attacking and trying to prevent two people from being together. It is as if the world has some equilibrium that if a gay couple is happy, then some straight couple might suffer somehow. Dont we have better things to do???!?!?!
To the guy who said it is better for daddy to work and mommy to stay at him:
Gender does not determine parenting skills. Good parenting makes someone a good parent, whether they are female, male, gay, straight, liberal, or *gulp* republican. (although I still have my doubts about the last one.)
This comment was written by will.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
That it is disgusting is certainly your opinion, but stating that something is ‘unnatural’ is not just an opinion. It’s a statement of fact, which in this case is quite incorrect. I have in the past linked to a study that shows that homosexuality, and bisexuality, is quite widespread among any species of animals.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
You really didn’t want to start an argument, gengwall, by making an unsupported assertion that you knew most people here would disagree with? OK, whatever you say. Just in case anyone else is interested, however…
Your assertion seems reasonable, even likely. Certainly if all my kids’ primary caregivers were women I would try to make sure they had good men in their lives. I think my husband would seek out female role models for them in the reverse case. But just because I (or he, or you, or anyone) would do that based on a reasonable assumption doesn’t mean that the assumption is valid. All the studies I’ve seen say that the sex of the parent(s) is less important than the quality of the upbringing.
Just for the record, I am a woman, born that way, and I don’t count myself as a feminist. And I thought the piece was funny.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Geez, how did this one get through?
I’m not ruffled, but I’m afraid you are banned.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
From Alas, a blog
This comment was written by Eldgie in Phila.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
When you can’t handle the truth…
Barry at Alas has grown increasingly frustrated at his inability to rationally defend his views on s-s”m” … I offer an easy to comprehend rebuttal to each punch and jab of their shadow-boxing routine:
This comment was written by The Opine Editorials.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Lu - We have a phrase up here in Minnesota. I don’t know if it’s universal or not. It goes “I was just giving you the needle”. It means I was taking a little verbal jab but did not really have any serious intent. That was the spirit in which I gave my initial post. As I pointed out, I think the list is very funny. I agree that right wingers have committed plenty of errors to justify the “needling” that the list intended and so I thought I’d just “needle” back alittle. That’s all.
Aside from that I still think (this is more for Kristjan Wager than Lu since you seem to agree) that it is only common sense that a dual sex perspective is better for a developing child. I have a natural tendency to distrust “studies” (especially ones from Denmark for cryin-out-load) but this goes beyond research to me. How can it NOT be true that, as you said, all things being equal, that a man/woman combo provides a more rounded upbringing - especially socially. Still, I can certainly agree on a case by case basis that “What’s important is how well functioning the household is - a stable household is better for the kid than an unstable household.” This also seems common sense to me. I go back to your “all things being equal” though. If household stability is equal, wouldn’t you agree that dual sex is better than single sex?
And Will - I’m not talking parenting skill I’m talking developmental environment. See above. If parenting skill is equal then wouldn’t a dual sex environment be better than a single sex environment?
Amp - sorry. I know this was just a fun piece. I hope I haven’t put a damper on it.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Oi - way to go to the people proving my earlier comment true.
I would say that having two parents (regardless of gender) is likely to be more beneficial to a child than one, all other things being equal. Note that this does not include unhappy, abusive, or otherwise unhealthy partner situations. Having more perspectives and role models is likely healthier than having fewer. I’m unaware of any study saying that the sex of the role models in question has a significant effect.
This comment was written by Tapetum.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Can we eat eels (vertebrates), or does Leviticus consider them creepy-crawly and not fish? I don’t need a prohibition to not eat geckos, but eels I like.
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Denmark is a good place for social and medical studies, since the population doesn’t move a lot (easier to trace), the demographic and medical records are computerized nationwide, and people don’t seem to mind answering questions that would leave Americans surly.
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Well said, Tapetum. I would not want to try to raise kids by myself, simply because of the amount of work involved. If (heaven forfend) I had to raise them without my husband, though, and I were lucky enough to have a choice among potential stepparents, I don’t know that I’d necessarily consider the sex of the other parent/caregiver more important than, or even close to as important as, responsible parenting and ability to balance my strengths and weaknesses. (I’m a better disciplinarian; my husband is a better nurturer.)
Likewise, a variety of perspectives is probably good — but no one ever seriously recommends that parents should be of different races, or from different countries.
The most common condition isn’t necessarily the only good one. Something that some (or even most) people find icky isn’t therefore morally wrong.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
I think eels would probably be considered creepy-crawlies, but I’m not sure. The rule is that you can eat any water critter that has both fins and scales. That eliminates shark, skate, and cephalopods in addition to the better-known prohibition of shellfish.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
NancyP, eels are not Kosher. Make of that what you will.
[alsis39 envisions a huge market for Pareve mock-eels made of Tofu. Stumbles while trying to think up a snappy brandname for same. Realizes that she really needs to get out more...]
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Well Nancy, your eating preferences are up in the air biblically
Leviticus 11:9-11
9 “As for marine animals, you may eat whatever has both fins and scales, whether taken from fresh water or salt water. 10 You may not, however, eat marine animals that do not have both fins and scales. You are to detest them, 11 and they will always be forbidden to you. You must never eat their meat or even touch their dead bodies. (NLT)
From library.thinkquest.org and others
Eels with scales (have at it Nancy)
Freshwater
Conger
Gulper (deep-sea)
Eels without scales (”detest, I say!”)
This comment was written by gengwall.Moray
Snake
Worm
Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
My two basic issues with SSM:
(1) I oppose redistributing money from single to married people by granting benefits to those who are married. This is a general objection to the modern institution of marriage. But, while there’s little prospect of getting rid of this aspect of opposite-sex marriage, it’s still possible to stop SSM.
(2) I’m sympathetic to the argument that SSM will change the nature of marriage. Marriage is currently a hetrosexual institution to do with having and raising children - hence things like consumation and the presumption of legitimacy. I can’t see how it can be extended to same-sex couples without either changing these, or warping current law. I have no idea how countries which allow SSM have gotten around this problem (please enlighten me if you know).
If you think I’m wrong feel free to explain why.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Yes, weird that a Dane would refer to Danish studies. But actually, what I said was that those studies were brought up in the Danish debate. For some reason, Danes don’t discount studies from outside Denmark (though US studies are viewed sceptically, as too many of them have turned out to be tainted financially).
And as NancyP said, Denmark is actually a pretty good place to make such studies, not only for the reasons NancyP mentions, but also because of the fact that civil partnerships have been allowed for longer time in Denmark than anywhere else.
Why should it be true? Households don’t exist in a vacum - there are plenty of male/female people around the kids, even if they live in a same-sex household. As I said, all studies show that there are no detectable difference when all other factors are factored out.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
No. Marriage has nothing to do with having children and raising children - where does it state so in the marriage vows/laws? Does the state go in and annul childless marriages? Are marriages between people past the childbearing age forbidden?
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Kristjan;
I feel part of the justification for marriage (and perhaps the only justification which I have have sympathy with) is that it is an institution to do with having and raising children.
It’s very easy to answer your question. There are plenty of places in marriage law (the presumption of legitimacy, parental obligations) where marriage changes peoples’ relationship to the legitimate children of the marriage. Marriages where people don’t do things that can result in children (those which aren’t consumated) can be annuled. Marriage is all tied up with children. I think it’s slightly odd to say it has nothing to do with them.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Ok, I am being a bit to cathegorical in my dismissal of your statement, but it is really not an institution with the purpose of getting and raising children. It would be as easy to argue that marriage is an institution with the purpose of allowing sex between two adults of different sexes, or with the purpose of limiting two peoples’ sex with one and another.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
What i am trying to get across, is that there are many purposes for marriages, some of which are related to children, but many more which are related to inheritage and benifits.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
No. Marriage has nothing to do with having children and raising children - where does it state so in the marriage vows/laws? Does the state go in and annul childless marriages? Are marriages between people past the childbearing age forbidden?
No, they aren’t, for the same reason that elderly grandmothers who drive 20 MPH aren’t forbidden to buy Porsches. That doesn’t mean the the Porsche 911 was created with elderly slow grandmothers in mind.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Geez, how did this one get through?
*raises hand sheepishly*
I thought there was a somewhat muddled argument in the comment somewhere about partnership benefits and rights of unmarried couples that deserved to be looked at. I didn’t read the whole thing carefully enough.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Certainly a dual sex perspective on the world has more to offer a developing child than a single sex perspective.
The fascinating thing about this line of argument is the way it treats the sexes as monolithic blocks. Yeah, there are differences between men and women on average, but some individual women are a lot like the majority of men and vice versa. If I was trying to get a “dual sex perspective” for raising Andrea, I’d probably be better off looking for a woman.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Lu,
I also read gengwall’s comments as tongue in cheek. I doubt that my “rule” could be subjected to strict scrutiny by someone who wasn’t inclined to see it as humour.
The way I read it, which now takes all the humour out of it, was “The religious wrong claims that children needs two parents, one of whom must work outside the house all day long, and other the other of whom must be solely responsible for child rearing.”
Deconstructing that, the religious wrong is essentially saying that children need a mother and a money.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
“Playing with loaded dice” is quite universal, I think. You provided a straightforward criticism to the point 9 in the list, and because the original post and the thread is humor, you can defend your claim by simply saying you were taking a little verbal jab and trying to be funny. Accept the statement = win (everyone agrees with me, good.)
Criticize the statement = win (just kidding, don’t be so serious, what’s the matter with you?)
If you throw jabs, don’t complain if someone thinks your intent is to have a boxing match. That is, I was quite sure you were just kidding, but you still need to take responsibility for your claims. Defend them seriously or take them back.
As for the question whether dual sex parenthood would be better than same sex one, all other things being equal. This is difficult thing to answer, since the “all other things being equal” is a pretty tall order (number of siblings the child would have? Grandparental involvement? Money? Location? Race of parents? Etc.)! All is a quite strong word, and it is difficult (if not completely impossible) for two sets of parents two be completely equal in all things, as every man and woman is an invidual. That said, it is my opinion that two good but different parents are generally better than one or two similar (different parental roles etc.). I’m just not sure how this opinion automatically would mean that opposite-sex parenthood is superior.
Personally I believe there are some “trends” and averages in men and women that differ. Biologically too. More men are physically competitive than women, for example. There are differences on hormonal level (that do affect personality somewhat for both sexes). From these observations some claim that “Men are x, women are y!”, but this does not follow, IMO. What about the numerous people who are on some level atypical for their gender’s average (and most are, on some level)? Especially when talking about things like personality and method of parenting.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
I cross-posted with couple of people (Nick Kiddle and FCH. Yeah, I wrote slowly.) I agree with Nick Kiddle’s position on gender: The monolithic “male personality” vs. “female personality” is stupid. As if all women were the same, and all men were the same! It is interesting that criticism of this is so often straw-manned as “feminists think men and women are the same!”.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
I agree with everyone else who says that although being raised by two diverse views is probably a good thing, it’s hardly as if the only way to get two diverse personalities is to have one of each sex. I doubt, for instance, that any SSM opponents would argue that only cross-race marriages should be allowed, although doubtless that would also provide children with a diversity of viewpoints.
The truth is, just as there can be vastly more important differences between two personalities than what race each is, there can be vastly more important differences between two personalities than what sex each is. To focus on sex as the only source of diversity in marriage, as if two women or two men cannot be significantly different people, is a mistaken and sexist view.
* * *
I do agree that part of the reason for marriage is to provide a stable, healthy environment for raising children. This isnt the only justification for marriage (which is why non-childbearing couples are allowed to marry), but it is one important justification. However, since many same-sex parents do have and raise children, the advantages that come to children from marriage is a strong reason in support of legal recognition of same-sex marriage.
* * *
Nick, no biggie. Glad to have it explained, though - I was thinking that I must have approved it and been too sleepy to recall! :-P
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
FCH et al., I did take the original comment to be (semi) (sort of) humorous, but I still wanted to challenge the “of course mom-and-dad families are better” presumption therein. I should have seen “you people have no sense of humor” coming a mile away.
What Amp and Nick said about “male” and “female” perspectives.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
nik:
I’m suprised that no one has thus pointed out that gay people already do have children. One in six gay male couples have children and one in three gay female couples have children. These numbers are expected to double in the next 10 years. Legalizing same sex marriage won’t make the homos start having children, they’ve been having them outside of marriage for a while now.
Speaking from my own experiance as a bisexual whose social circle is predominantly gay, most people I know want kids. I know one lesbian who doesn’t want children and a handful of gay boys, but overwhelmingly, my friends discuss long term plans with children in the future. I even know one lesbian couple whose son was fathered by a gay male friend, so the kid has three gay parents. The ones who don’t want kids are (generalization based on my friends) ones who are not ok with their sexuality yet or had a really crummy childhood and don’t want to be parents because they’re not sure they would be any good at it. Marriage really isn’t a factor in wanting kids.
Often the real question is how many kids we can afford, not if we should have them at all. For example, my girlfriend and I would ideally like two or three children, but we might not be able to afford that many since second parent adoption is costly, medical care for the child will be costly, and basically everything from the morgage to our taxes will cost twice as much as for straight people.
So I don’t understand how somone can oppose gay marriage because marriage is for the raising of children.
This comment was written by SarahS.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2006 at 2:48 am
In my opinion, marriage is a societal stabilizer, full stop. The states role and agreement in giving perks to couples is to encourage adults to care for one another and their offspring so the state has less of a chance of having to. Society in general encourages familial networks because ultimately things just run smoother, which is of course a HUGE benefit to the state, when these networks are in place. The narcissistic notion that it’s a gold star for being a breeder is ridiculous.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2006 at 4:04 am
So I don’t understand how somone can oppose gay marriage because marriage is for the raising of children.
I get the impression that most opposition to gay marriage is, like eric’s, based on a feeling that gays are icky and shouldn’t be encouraged. But unlike eric, most opponents don’t want to state that outright, so we get pseudo-justifications about sexual complementarity and child-raising.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2006 at 5:09 am
Right, Nick, the yuck factor. There’s a tendency to think that anything I don’t like must be bad and unnatural, and if most people agree with me that reinforces that belief.
To take a totally non-sex-related example, I cannot stand the music of Bela Bartok, and I find that a lot of people feel the same way. Should we therefore ban listening to it or performing it, passing laws against unnatural musical acts? Prevent known Bartok aficionados from marrying lest they pass the vile predilection to their offspring? Heaven knows we shouldn’t allow them to be teachers, especially (be still my heart) music teachers.
Well… no. Just don’t make me listen to it. (My DH adores Bartok, and — you see what dreadful things can happen — our DD seems to like it too. This is not a bad thing, since it means that in a few years he can take her to the damned concerts.)
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2006 at 7:18 am
Lots of people have said this, but Amp said it the clearest:
We’re talking about two different conceptions of the relationship between marriage and children. It’s important that we untangle them.
(1) When I say that marriage is an institution built around having and raising children I don’t mean any particular children, I mean the legitimate children of the marriage. In this sense marriage is a contract with children you have with your spouse now and with potential future children.
(2) Some SSMers (including - I think - Amp above) see things differently. Marriage is for raising children, but it doesn’t particularly matter whose biological children the marriage raises. Marriage is equally an institution for two people raising a child that’s only biologically related to one of them, or none of them.
I can’t support view (2). If you agree with it I think you’re also wedded to supporting things like people gaining parental authority over their spouses child by virtue of marriage, people being obligated to support other people’s children by virtue of the fact they were married to them, and so on. I don’t think that’s a theoretical complaint either, there are SSM proponents who would support those positions.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2006 at 8:06 am
Tuomas - you are giving me way more print than I deserve, especially since I’m out of the conversation. Besides, I think Lu and Kristjan Wager and I had quite a nice talk about it and it’s all good. They and the others have carried on it I think it is a very good discussion. So, I’m not so sure why you paid any attention to me when nobody else was (which was just fine by me).
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Nik,
It sounds like you’re arguing against reproductive technologies and adoption. While I can understand some (theologically-based) arguments against the use of reproductive technologies, I’m unaware of any argument presented by any group of people, against adoption.
Could you please clarify what you mean because I can’t imagine you’re actually arguing against all adoptions, regardless of the number and/or gender of parents.
Absent marital rights when an adopted child is being raised I don’t see how the financial rights of the child are protected. One of the advantages I see (and this is called “an opinion”, so if anyone disagrees, that’s fine. I’m not going to change my opinion, however …) of community property law is that spouses have a set of rules which govern the use of assets within that relationship. And, when children are present, there is some (however inaccurate it might be based on all kinds of crud) expectation about what assets will be available to raise ones children.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2006 at 10:17 am
A male and a female parent are best to raise their biological children only? You realize that this is a very recent idea? Most people who ever lived would think that is a terrible way to raise children. You really need as many grandparents as are alive, as many aunts and uncles as you can find, cousins, and family friends, adopted relatives, and maybe the people down the street, if not the whole hunting and gathering band you’re a member of.
If you’re going to argue that a child needs a male and female parent because it gives some kind of diversity of views you should really think it through, and not only in a narrow Judeo-Christian way, because Christianity is also a very recent construct.
This comment was written by ErikaGillian.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2006 at 10:20 am
I think Nik gives a very good formula for why I resist SSM: it is assimilationist at its core. His arguments here and the other comments by supporters of SSM swing heavily into the arena of children and “social contracts” without ever addressing the lack of civil rights that gay and lesbains experience in the here and now. Marriage is a selfish institution, driven by centuries of male ownership of their wives and offspring. I am ashamed to think that the future of my civil rights is being formed by an institution so rigid in its inequalities and heteronormativity.
As for you two guys here that find homosexuality to be gross or unnatural: 10% of the population is homosexual; 25% of all women are raped by, presumably, heterosexual men. I would dare to say that is heterosexuality that is gross and unnatural. But that’s why we need marriage in the first place: to normatize that which is unnatural.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2006 at 10:56 am
Whoa, there, Q Grrl! Speaking as a heterosexual female (sorry, I can’t help it, I can’t deny these urges), I don’t think heterosexuality per se is gross and unnatural (but see my earlier comment about whatever feels that way to a given person). I agree that rape and rape culture are gross and unnatural.
I have to think some more about your point about marriage, about its being part of the same package as rape culture. I’ve been married for 25 years to a man who couldn’t rape me if he tried, and it feels quite natural to me. It’s possible that our relationship is not normal.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Yes, I don’t dispute that. Despite the bad start, the conversation is good. People did pay you attention - didn’t you just say that yourself?
If you don’t want to carry on, that is fine, you made your position clear and I made my position clear. Half of my post was not actually directed to you only, but you provided a start.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Damn, poor kids born outside marriages, in former marriages, and who are adopted. It seems that by Nik’s definition of marriage, they are left out of the institution built around having and raising children. nik, can you see how ridicullous this is?
Marriage is, eccentially, a legal cotnract between two people, which also covers children born by those people, while they are married (and presumably children born by them before and after, and children being adopted by them).
BTW, I have commented upon it before, what is it with Americans’ focus on legitimaty of children? This is a leftover from the times of inheritage (the eldest takes all), and should by no means be relevant now.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
I realize that Eric was banned, but I still have to respond to this piece of crap:
Where to begin?
First, in many companies that offer domestic partner benefits (including my own), unmarried heterosexual couples are also eligible. So Eric’s girlfriend WOULD be eligible…if Eric is willing to sign an affadavit, get it notarized, and provide “proof” of his relationship. That is, provide some HR person he’s never met with the joint checking account statements he has with this girlfriend, or maybe paperwork proving that they have a mortgage together, that sort of thing. The sort of thing that married couples NEVER need to provide when signing up for benefits.
Oh, you don’t have a joint checking account? The mortgage is all in your name? Guess you’re out of luck then. Make yourselves financially interdependent and apply again next year. Even though a legal spouse is eligible 5 minutes after the wedding, the evidence of your relationship must be dated at least one year ago.
Also, Eric might decide it isn’t really worth signing his girlfriend up for benefits once they tell him that the benefits will be taxed differently. All the contributions he makes for his own coverage will come out pre-tax and lower his tax overall burden. The contributions he makes to cover his girlfriend will come out post-tax.
And then, of course, when his employer prepares his W2, they will conveniently take the amount of money they’ve paid towards the girlfriend’s coverage and report it to the IRS as Eric’s income, thus incresing his tax liability! Which of course they DON’T do for married couples.
After looking over all this, Eric will probably decide it makes more sense to just marry the girlfriend, in which case all these extra hassles and extra costs magically melt away.
I’m not sure what Eric’s “by law” comment even means — DP benefits are offered by companies that choose to offer them. They are not mandated by law. In fact, they are against the law in certain states.
Finally, in companies that only offer DP benefits for same-sex couples, there is no law preventing heterosexuals from lobbying management to cover their significant others. It was likely ordinary gay employees who first made the case for the coverage (in my company, it was ME, so I have direct knowledge of this) - if you want to change the policy, stop whining, get off your butt and do the work! Make the case for why it is good business! That’s what we did!
I realize there’s no point in arguing with someone like Eric, but still…even pro-gay people are often sadly misinformed about how DP benefits work and how they differ from benefits offered to married couples.
Sara
This comment was written by SaraS.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
Lu, I think what Qgrrrl is saying is that heterosexuality is as socially constructed as homosexuality. Neither of these concepts existed before the late 19th century (I think. Until that time, someone might engage in heterosexual or homosexual acts, but people didn’t think of sexual identity as something related to identity. Heterosexuality as an idea or norm was created to distinguish “normal” people from homosexuals, who were pathologized and criminalized. This is called compulsory heterosexuality, which is the assumption that men and women are innately attracted to each other, making heterosexuality natural and universal. Compulsory heterosexuality not only leads to (and reinforces) instiutionalized inequalities between heterosexuals and homosexuals, but men and women.
This comment was written by dorktastic.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 2:10 am
Compulsory heterosexuality
What an interesting and woefully far too appropriate expression. I’ve never heard normative sexuality referred to this way, but I’ll be damned if it isn’t true.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 4:17 am
For those who think that the definition of marriage should be changed, how would you change it and where would you draw the line?
This comment was written by quidam.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 7:03 am
Kristjan;
I’m trying to make a serious point. Two people get married, and one of them has kids with someone else. Should the step parent liable to support their spouses children? Should they gain parental rights over them?
Either these kids are included in the marriage contract, in the same way that legitimate children are, or they’re not. We could choose either form of marriage contract (for a biological or affective definition of children). But I’m pointing out that it can plausably be claimed that including illegitimate children would be unjust. Some people would object to being compelled to support some elses children after a divorce.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 7:23 am
Last I checked, legitimate children are children born during marriage, while illegitimate children are born outside marriage - so by your definition, a child born before a marriage would not be covered by the marriage.
Well, perhaps not, but since there are some obligations to children by both parents, no matter if they were married or not, it shows that marriage is not about breeding and raising children. A marriage can also be a tool in such things, but it’s not what it really is about.
Historically speaking marriage was more about showing who the woman belonged to, as well as making sure that the woman would have certain rights/privileges (such as inheritage) - this was necessary because of the different structure of society back then, but it is hardly what marriage is about these days.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Take a look at the old marriage laws, and you’ll find little stuff about children.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 9:48 am
Nik: I hate to point it out, but your point loses all seriousness when we’re talking about same-sex marriage. Or rather gay and lesbian civil rights. Screw children and whether they have both a mommy and a daddy. Lots of children lose their mommy and daddy when mommy and daddy would rather pander to their homophobia than provide” appropriate male and female role-models.” Or maybe homophobia IS part and parcel of “appropriate” male and female parenting, eh? Which I’m sure you’re aware of with your aversion to gays and lesbians. Fine, you take marriage; define it as you like. I say keep grief where it already is. As a social structure, marriage is crap. I don’t need the state to recognize my romantic relationships. I need the state to afford me the exact same civil rights/liberties that my heterosexual peers have. I don’t need to assimilate my lesbianism just so I can get a pat on the back by the rest of ya’ll and be told that I make a mighty fine “house nigger.”
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 10:27 am
Kristjan;
I think you’re mistaken about the inside/outside marriage distinction. If a child’s (biological) parents marry, the child is legitimised by the marriage. I think the point of dispute is whether a similar process should apply to step-children.
Q Grrl;
I’m really not sure what you’re getting at.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 10:38 am
Nik: I know you don’t. Which lets me know that you probably don’t know jack shit about what gays and lesbians want, so why are you trying to pretend that you do?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Q Grrl;
I think your posts are incoherent (and also offensive, to be perfectly honest). I’ll give you that I’m not interested in what gays and lesbians want, though I suspect they don’t all want the same thing, I’m interested in what I think is a defensible marriage policy.
I’m not sure SSM can be justified on the basis of childraising, because that entails what I feel is an indefensible position on the relationship between marriage and children. And I’m not sure that outside childraising there’s any other justifiable reason for marriage - unless children come into it marriage is just state-sanctions discrimination against the single.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
You should keep in mind that the moderation policies of this blog should encourage you to be less perfectly honest.
In an earlier post, you wrote:
Suppose that Dick and Jane, a married couple, adopt a child from an orphanage. Do you consider that child to be a “legitimate” child of the marriage?
Now, suppose that Dick is infertile, and so Jane uses sperm from a sperm bank to get pregnant. Do you consider the resulting child to be a “legitimate” child of the marriage?
If you say those children are legitimate children of marriage, then you’re in accord with American law and also with what most Americans seem to believe; however, you’re also leaving yourself, imo, with no consistant reason for denying marriage to same-sex couples, some of whom adopt, and some of whom use sperm from sperm banks.
If you say those children are not legitimate children of marriage, then you’re putting yourself firmly outside mainstream American conceptions of the parent-child relationship, which has long acknowledged that child-parent relationships between adopted children, donor-created children, and their parents are legitimate.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Q Grrl writes:
But one of the civil rights/liberties your hetero peers have, is the right to have the state recognize their romantic relationships. So if you should have the exact same rights (and I agree you should), doesn’t that by definition include the right to civil recognition of marriage?
Or are you saying heterosexuals should no longer have those rights? I’d have a lot of sympathy with that in principle - I think that Martha Fineman’s argument that the central legal family relationship should be changed to caretaker/cared for, rather than romantic partners, makes a lot of sense - but I also worry that such a reform is centuries away at best, whereas the less perfect equality of SSM might be achievable in a much shorter time scale.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Nik: you say *my* posts are offensive?! But yet you don’t call out the posters above me that put in their $.02 about the offensiveness and unnaturalness of homosexuality… even the ones that later claimed they were just joking? Very, very odd. Your offensiveness is quite selective. The only thing that I’ve said that they didn’t is that I replaced “homosexual” with “heterosexual”. How telling that *I’m* offensive. … and yet you blather on about children and marriage and contracts and nonesense. All nonsense.
Are you gay? Do you live in a state that protects homosexuals against discrimination in housing, jobs, etc? Or are you straight? And do you only perk up your ears when you hear “marriage”? Your concern for children that haven’t even been born, conceived, thought out, or planned in any manner is nauseating when we’ve got grown adults living as second class citizens in the good ol’ USofA. I’m sorry if you find my saying that “offensive”. You have oddly thin skin if you do. And you’re willing to play strange theorectical chess about things that haven’t even come to fruition yet: all those poor children in single sex households.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Amp, this is a little disengenuous. There is not a single heterosexual person out there that has gained the right to work or the right to houseing (among some issues) through their marital status. I refuse to go down that narrow road the equates the good queer with the married queer. That is assimilation; and I happen to think that assimilation into a white, middle-class, patriarchal norm is a very, very dangerous thing to desire. If I want the state to recognize anything, it isn’t my romantic interests, but my basic humanity — which other forms of the state other than a marriage lisence can address, redress, or protect. Marriage is an institution with a horrid history and a horrid track record, the last thing I want to do is write a chapter into its history entitled “The Great Queer Migration to Assimilation.”
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
No, honestly, it’s not. I may be misunderstanding your point, but I’m doing it sincerely.
No, but there are plenty of heterosexuals who have gained other rights - such as the right to inheret, the right to a deceased life partner’s social security, the right to have their life partner move to this country, the right not to be forced to testify against their life partner, and the right to direct their comotose life partner’s medical care - through their marital status.
Especially for people at lower income levels, issues like social security inheritance can be life or death. These are not minor issues.
(And no, I’m not being disengenuous - I sincerely believe that these are important rights, and that it’s a terrible injustice that my queer peers don’t have equal access to these rights.)
I’m not saying that to be good, people (including queers) must marry (I’m not married in the conventional sense, and I don’t expect I ever will be). And I think it’s fine for queers (or non-queers) to choose not to assimilate or concede to white, middle-class, patriarchal norms. But I’m bothered by the fact that, under our current laws, not getting married isn’t a choice for queers; it’s a fact imposed by discriminatory marriage laws.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Amp, most lower income queers could give a rat’s ass less about marriage. Honestly. It is a white, middle-class ideal, especially a normative one that implies a healthy adult lifestyle and indeed, “goodness”. You might not make the connection between normative behavior and relative goodness, but I sure do. Its something that you really can’t miss once you’ve lived any real time as the “other”. You might not be married in the conventional sense, but your whole concept of conventional and non-conventional is firmly rooted in you being fully normative (i.e., heterosexual). I’m not married in the conventional heterosexual sense, but my relationship with my girlfriend is entirely conventional in relation to gay/lesbian society. That is why I can say with confidence that marriage, in accordance with heterosexual norms and conventionality, is assimilation when gays and lesbians partake in it.
But, I want to get back to this:
And? You kind of throw lower income queers in there as a selling point, but I’m not buying it, quite frankly. If young, lower income (and especially racial minority) gays and lesbians can be refused housing and jobs based on their homosexuality, aren’t those life and death issues too? I mean, who are we kidding here? How ’bout all those young, lower income gays/lesbians that got fired, legally, from Cracker Barrell? How in heaven’s name is marriage going to help that?
As to the first paragraph of this quote, why are those rights contingent for queers on the ability to marry? Why are you putting those things out there for my review? Are you saying that I should willingly assimilate in order to have these things? Because if you are, and you do sound like it, you’re saying “the only good queer is a married queer.” It smells like a trap to me.
How well do you think the civil rights movement would have gone over if the civil rights of racial minorities were contigent upon their being married? It would have looked like a damn farce.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Amp;
Re: The legitimacy of donor and adopted children.
You’ve put your finger on exactly my problem. I’m not comfortable with the “legal transplant” idea of adoption or with donor conception either. “Legitimacy” in this situation is a lie. It was justified on the basis that infertility was a stigma and that illegitimate children were legally disadvantaged (thankfully something which has been done away with). It should be done away with.
I think the justification of SSM from adoption is tenuous. This is the reasoning: (1) We should pretend an adopted child (of married parents) is legitimate. (2) Same-sex couples can adopt. (3) Therefore SSM is justified on the basis of children.
Siblings can adopt. Parents can co-adopt their grand-children. But they can’t marry, so I’m not sure the leap to (3) is justified. I also think (1) is a legal fiction, for convienience, I don’t think it should be given any real weight as a foundation for other changes.
Donor children and adopted children aren’t the same are ‘real’ legitimate children. If a wife has a ‘real’ legitimate child the husband married her and his obligations flow from that. If a wife adopts or has a donor conceived child, the husband’s obligations don’t flow from the marriage. These are both tacked on the side of marriage. If all children were from donors or adoption, I think we could do away with marriage.
We can date both of these developments. Law on donor-created children goes back 20 years(ish), and is heavily contested. Law on adoption grew through about 1900 to the 1950s, and has come under a huge amount of criticism in recent years. I wouldn’t say the law’s that longstanding or firmly accepted.
I conceed I’m outside the mainstream American conception of marriage and the parent-child relationship, all I’d say is that I can throw the same accusation right back at you. Neither us are happy with the current situation, so I don’t think not agreeing with it is a problem.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
QGrrl, you’re really making me rethink the whole SSM thing. I had never really considered marriage from an assimilation POV before, but I think might I agree, mostly, once I’ve had a chance to absorb the concept. Because if marriage isn’t normative, then (trivially) why on earth do we have all of these relationship advice columns where people moan about why their SO won’t “commit” or what to do about their in-laws (and now I really notice that word, too).
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Q Grrl;
I’m quite comfortable with how I’ve behaved. Your posts were specifically addressed to me. The others weren’t, and had nothing to do with me. That’s why my “offensiveness is quite selective”.
I don’t accept your suggestion that because gay people are disadvantaged it’s illegitimate to be concerned about disadvantage suffered by others. It’s like saying that because there are people suffering from famine it’s illegitimate to be concerned about disadvantage suffered by gay people.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Except Nik, you are mostly talking about people who don’t even exist yet.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
If young, lower income (and especially racial minority) gays and lesbians can be refused housing and jobs based on their homosexuality, aren’t those life and death issues too?
If you’re saying that the focus shouldn’t be exclusively on marriage rights, or that the current focus is too heavily on marriage rights and takes away from these issues, I’m with you. But that doesn’t mean that marriage equality isn’t worth fighting for.
As to the first paragraph of this quote, why are those rights contingent for queers on the ability to marry?
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Those rights are part of the legal-recognition-of-partnership package commonly known as “marriage”. I suppose it might be possible to gain the same rights some other way, but it would end up being either a) unworkably cumbersome or b) marriage in all but name.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Q Grrl, even accepting your claim that only a minority of lower-income queers give a rat’s ass about marriage, it doesn’t follow that the minority’s concerns are unimportant.
Actually, I self-identify as a confused asexual nowadays, which still gets me hetero privilege (I don’t deny that!) but is hardly “fully normative.” The idea that someone simply doesn’t WANT to have sex, or be in a romantic relationship (queer or straight), but nonetheless isn’t bitter, a loser or mentally diseased, is not accepted in our society.
But I digress. :-P
You don’t buy that for some poor people, the ability to inheret social security can be desparately important? Please.
Just because a particular right doesn’t help a young person working for Cracker Barrell, doesn’t mean that the right is worthless and should be chucked, or that the people who would be helped by that right don’t matter. No one policy helps all queers in all circumstances. Being able to marry - and thus (to go back to my past example) able to inherit a partner’s social security - won’t help someone fired from Cracker Barrell. Likewise, for someone too old and infirm to work, the right not to get fired from Cracker Barrell won’t help - but maybe the ability to inherit social security will.
1) Those rights are contingent for everyone on the ability to marry - or, really, on the ability to be able to have the government acknowlege one’s kin-making choice, regardless of if it’s called “marraige” or not. That’s what legal marriage is; declaring “such and such a person from now on is my closest kin in the world,” and having the legal institutions of society recognize that statement.
2) You pointed out that there are rights striaghts have without having to get married. It seemed, in context, on-topic to point out that there are substantial rights that straights, but not queers, can access through marriage.
3) I’m saying that as long as straights have the right to have the state acknowlege their kin-by-marriage, queers should have that right too. However, saying that you should have the right to do something isn’t the same as saying you should do something. I don’t care if you get married or not, frankly - I think you’re obviously much better placed than anyone else to decide what’s best for you on that score.
And that’s my point. Right now, the government says queers can never get married. That’s disgusting. I don’t care if not a single queer in the world chooses to get married, but it should be their choice, not the government’s.
In this society, marriage is not going away anytime in the next hundred or two hundred years - although it will keep on changing. Meanwhile, there are important rights that are bundled with marriage that some queers would like access to. You don’t have to want those rights or care about them, but for those who do want them, I think they should be available.
With all due respect, if in the 1950s and 60s blacks had been barred from legal marriage, do you think the civil rights movement would have accepted that for one second?
(Cross-posted with Nick!)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Amp wrote:
You say that like it’s unusual to the species, Bubbelah. :p
Like Nick, I hope that the battle for SSM is a middle chapter– not the last chapter– in the fight for rights.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
It’s also worth noting that the fight for SSM in Oregon (in which we lost), led pretty much directly to the closest we have yet come to getting protection against job and housing discrimination in Oregon (lots of Republican reps wanting to prove they were just protective of the word ‘marriage’, rather than homophobes). Only last minute anti-democratic shenanigans by the Republican house speaker prevented a vote and a victory. It is by no means clear that the fight for SSM is contrary to the fight against housing and job discrimination.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
OTOH, as a married person who is fundamentally opposed to the institution of marriage, I do understand the assimilative threat that being allowed into the institutions you hate poses. Marriage as an institution has a long history of evil, but it also provides a nice package of goodies. If you find that you need the goodies, you will find yourself attracted to opting in to the institution you hate.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
nik–state laws vary, but your assumption that people are automatically responsible for child support for their stepkids when they divorce is incorrect in each of the four states i’ve lived in. that responsibility comes only if the stepparent adopts or is a legal guardianship.
also–i am amazed to read some of the comments here about marriage, such as this response to analogy re: childless marriages.
robert–first of all, it’s a really bad analogy to compare an expensive car to one of humankind’s oldest instututions.
but you’re wrong; marriage was “created” with the elderly in mind, in part. marriage is (and always has been) for old women, and young ones, and young and old men as well.
historically, marriage is about a lot of things, primarily; 1. assuring male paternity, 2. having children and caring for them 3. insuring the care of both spouses into their old age (by children, inheritance, etc.) historically, widows could own property before single women. why? because otherwise the care of widows and their children would fall to the community.
so yes, marriage is for grandma and grandpa as well. marriage is supposed to be about stabilizing society by sharing resources and labor, and *ideally* allowing a framework for cradle to grave care of human beings.
(by the way, the porsche analogy reveals an interesting bias on the part of the poster robert. a porsche is compared to marriage–and is for young people, not “slow grandmothers.” uh-huh. so marriage is for men as porsches are for men? a porsche is a treat, an expensive indulgence–only for the young and particularly for men, yes? )
has marriage fallen short of this ideal? just ask qgirl. ;-) but for now, it’s what we’ve got and to put yourself outside of this institution is to reduce some of your possible privileges in life. ssm must be legal as it is a vital step on the road to a more equitable society. but it is only one step.
and nik–a question; what is the perceived social good you see in disallowing the legitimacy of the children of adoption or articficial insemination? i can’t think of one thing.
This comment was written by maribelle.Report this comment to the moderators
January 19th, 2006 at 3:08 am
maribelle;
I’m not assuming that people are automatically responsible for child support for their stepkids upon divorce. I’m just saying the state has to call it one way or the other. And I’m suggesting that we should think very hard about if it is fair to make the call that they are. And if you don’t make that call, then marriage isn’t about the sort of children a gay couple can have, and you can’t justify SSM from children.
(1) They’d be entitled to inherit from their bio-parents.
(2) They’d be entitled to child support from their bio-parents.
(3) They would be entitled to know their bio-parents are alive and their bio-parents would be entitled to know that they’re alive.
(4) and so on…
All that flows from a system that legally cuts away one set of parents and replaces them with another. This doesn’t need to happen. We could use a form of permanent guardianship instead, give children all the benefit of a new family, and allow them to maintain all the rights above. The only reason the current system exists is because of the poisonous idea that it would be best for illegitimate children to be totally seperated from their mothers and that being a bastard, or infertile, was a stigma. The whole thing is just a relic.
I think I’m going to retire from this discussion now. I think most the SSM proponents here support SSM on a basis other than children. So I can talk about this all I want, but I’m not going to change anyone’s mind.
I also get the feeling that most people here feel that (aside from the issue of children) marriage nothing more than discrimination against the single. So it basically comes down to whether it’s justifiable for gay couples to do this too. Those who think so support SSM, those who don’t support the abolition of marriage.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
January 19th, 2006 at 4:18 am
expressly forbid single parents to raise children. 10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans. Found atAmpersand’s Place.
This comment was written by Bloodless Coup.Report this comment to the moderators
January 20th, 2006 at 2:09 am
nik: (1) They’d be entitled to inherit from their bio-parents.
(2) They’d be entitled to child support from their bio-parents.
(3) They would be entitled to know their bio-parents are alive and their bio-parents would be entitled to know that they’re alive.
That doesn’t actually answer the question, though. But then, homophobes are never terribly rational about same-sex marriage and the ramifications thereof. You were asked (to remind you):
what the positive benefits were that you perceived from disallowing the legitimacy of the children of adoption or articficial insemination - and you responded with a wishlist about children never ever being allowed to be separated from their bioparents, not even when their bioparents don’t want them and their adoptive parents do.
So: you have a situation where a woman has been AID, and she has a child. The child is biologically her child and the child of a man she doesn’t know who has no interest in knowing his biological child. What positive benefits do you see to the child in never, ever, being allowed to be legally the child of the mother’s partner - a parent who has been involved with the child since the child’s birth?
So: you have a situation where a woman has a child, and neither she nor the man who sired it can or will take care of the child, and someone else adopts the child. What positive benefits do you see to the child in never, ever being allowed to be legally the child of the only parents they’ve known?
Don’t give a fantasy wishlist of what would happen if biological parents were always in touch with their biological children: explain why it’s beneficial for children to be permanent wards of the state rather than legally the children of the parents who brought them up.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
January 20th, 2006 at 2:12 am
Oh yes, and to give a practical, real life example, Nik, explain the positive benefits you see for Regina Louise in not having been allowed to be adopted by Jeanne Taylor. link
It’s your theory that Regina Louise was better off not being allowed to become Jeanne Taylor’s legal child. Explain to me how this works, please.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
January 20th, 2006 at 2:58 am
Nik, I ask this in all sincerity, as the spouse of a man whose mother is a married lesbian; are you able to understand and see the point of view that the disadvantage/suffering to children in SSfamilies is most frequently discrimination and condemnation from people espousing the beliefs that you are espousing? If you are able to take that leap of perspective, how do you then justify any suffering that you cause to these children from your interference in their families? Can you understand that we are a female/male married couple with two ‘legitimate’ children, and see your actions as not only bigoted, but extremely hostile towards our family as a whole? What would you suggest I tell my two daughters about the hateful things they hear from folks saying that there is something wrong, abnormal or unhealthy about their two very loving and good grand-mothers?
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
January 20th, 2006 at 9:14 am
Kim, while those are good questions, I still want an answer from Nik about her claim that adoption has no positive benefit to the adopted child. I’ve given her a real life example: I’ll be fascinated (in a sickened kind of way) to see what she comes up with to explain how Regina Louise was so much better off remaining the legal child of her bioparents than she would have been had she been adopted by a woman who wanted her.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
January 20th, 2006 at 9:29 am
Jesurgislac;
My list isn’t a wishlist about children never ever being allowed to be separated from their bioparents. There are cases where this is neccessary (like, as you say, when their bioparents don’t want them). I’m all for a system which allows us to separate children from their bioparents.
But, I don’t think we have to do this and make the bio-parents legal strangers to them. We can do this and allow the child to maintain their inheritence and support rights, the right to identify their parent, and the right for parents to gain information about them. I think that’s a positive benefit which would happen by disallowing the legitimacy of the children of adoption or articficial insemination. They would keep a series of rights which are at the moment are taken away from them. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be an “adoption” system, that’s a parody of my opinions, I’m saying by disallowing legitimacy we can place children who have to be separated from their bioparents in a more advantagous position than they currently are now.
Kim (basement variety!);
Of course I realise that children in SSfamilies suffer discrimination and condemnation from people who hate gays. Of course I don’t for a moment support this.
Interference in families happens at the moment because of the law. We’re already interfering in families when children are adopted or donor conceived. I think the current situation can be improved. I’m not trying to cause suffering, and I wouldn’t even advocate that most the changes I’d like be retrospective (most of what’s happen in the past is now water under the bridge).
I don’t think there’s anything wrong, abnormal or unhealthy about your daughters grand-mothers. I’m not posting here because I have a problem with gay people, I’m posting because here I have a problem with family law. I have the same problem as family law as it applies to straight people.
I think you’re attributing views to me which I don’t hold.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
January 20th, 2006 at 9:42 am
Nik, I was assuming that by legitimacy you meant “legally the child of”. Did you have another definition in mind?
You couldn’t have meant the standard definition of “legitimacy”, which is simply “the child of two parents who are legally married”, because you’re arguing that a child of two parents who are legally married ought to be illegitimate unless that child is biologically the child of them both. So, what did you mean?
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
January 20th, 2006 at 9:45 am
Follow-up: because you’re arguing that a child of two parents who are legally married ought to be illegitimate unless that child is biologically the child of them both
and you are arguing that if a child’s parents are not legally married is a legitimate child if the parents are the child’s biological parents. So you’ve discarded the standard definition of legitimacy, and I can’t see what else you could mean “legitimate child” to mean unless you mean “legally the child of”.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
January 20th, 2006 at 9:53 am
I’ve spotted an funny impliction of allowing same sex couples to marry, which some of you might appreciate.
At the moment marriages between same sex couples are automatically void. They never legally happened. So if someone finds the girl of his dreams, and later finds out she’s a man, they were never married and the marriage has no legal effect. (Yes - I know it’s bizarre but there are actual, if rather obscure, cases of this happening.) If the provision was removed, then the marriage is perfectly legal, and there would have to be a divorce after newlyweds have gone through the necessary waiting period.
Of course this would also cut both ways. If someone finds the girl of her dreams and it later transpires that she’s a man, the marriage would also be perfectly valid. And the same problem would arise.
The moral? If same sex couples can marry then some marriages will be valid even when one of the participants may have valid grounds for not wanting it to be. Maybe this supports the argument for two parallel institutions, rather than just deleting the provision that makes marriages between same sex couples void.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
January 20th, 2006 at 9:58 am
I don’t have time to read ALL the comments, but I did think this was an awesome list. My biggest logic issue with the whole thing is the “sanctity of marriage” argument ….
….. What about pre-nups? That’s basically starting off with the expectation that things aren’t gonna work. And THAT doesn’t detract from the seriousness of the committment?!?!?
This comment was written by steph.Report this comment to the moderators
January 20th, 2006 at 9:59 am
So if someone finds the girl of his dreams, and later finds out she’s a man, they were never married and the marriage has no legal effect. (Yes - I know it’s bizarre but there are actual, if rather obscure, cases of this happening.) If the provision was removed, then the marriage is perfectly legal, and there would have to be a divorce after newlyweds have gone through the necessary waiting period.
Absolutely false. If you marry somebody & they turn out to have grossly misrepresented themselves, the marriage can be voided upon request. In other words, if you agreed to marry due to fraud or misrepresentation, your marriage can be voided.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
January 20th, 2006 at 10:06 am
No, an example is that the child of unmarried parents is illegitimate, but is still legally their child.
I’ll find and post a formal definition later.
This is how I understand it in the case that you mention. If a child is born to a woman who’s married, but isn’t the husband’s the child is illegitimate. It’s born into a marriage, but is not the child of the married couple. (If the wife then divorces the husband, and marries the father, it becomes the father’s legitimate child, and is not the ex-husband’s).
Adoption and donor conception rules build on this. A child to parties to married couple who are party to the measure is automatically made legitimate (regardless of biology), and is not (legally) the child of the adoptive parents or donor at all.
Sorry for the confusion.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
January 20th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Jake Squid;
I think there’s a difference between void and voidable. Void happens automatically. I’m not sure about the details of the deception provision, but to use the voidable provision you’d have to prove your case (on the balance of probabilities) to a court.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
January 20th, 2006 at 10:30 am
There’s a difference between “void ab initio” and a marriage which is voided upon application to the court. The difference is that a marriage that is “void ab initio” can never be recognized legally as a marriage whil one that is voided by the court, although once voided considered to never have happened, can be considered valid before being voided.
The difference between “void” & “voidable” is meaningless once a voidable marriage is voided. (Okay, “void” now sounds really silly and not even like a real word).
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
January 20th, 2006 at 10:31 am
If a child is born to a woman who’s married, but isn’t the husband’s the child is illegitimate.
No. Only if the husband chooses to formally and legally repudiate the child. If a child is born to a mixed-sex married couple, the child is legitimate, and legally the child of husband and of wife: the law does not inquire who is biologically the child’s father. A husband can, if he can prove he isn’t biologically the child’s father, repudiate the child, which makes the child illegitimate, but nothing requires him to do so. You seem to be confused about this, but that’s the law, in both the US and the UK. Legitimacy doesn’t depend on biological fatherhood; it’s a legal relationship.
No, an example is that the child of unmarried parents is illegitimate, but is still legally their child.
So in fact, when you talk of adopted children and children conceived by donor being illegitimate, you mean that you want to make a meaningless distinction? You want the adopted child of a couple to be legally their child - that is, not legally the child of the bioparents - but to be known as illegitimate?
Being illegitimate will not in fact give the child any claim on their bioparents: illegitimacy has never had that function. In fact, historically, an illegitimate child legally had no parents - neither mother nor father.
If you want adopted children and children conceived by donor to be illegitimate, but still legally the children of their adoptive parents or of their mother and their mother’s partner, then the only “positive benefit” to adopted children and children conceived by donor is that they would be formally known as bastards.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
January 20th, 2006 at 11:23 am
I think there’s a difference between void and voidable. Void happens automatically.
Yes, and some couples see that as a problem.
This comment was written by hf.Report this comment to the moderators
January 20th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Nik,
I guess you’re right that I really don’t understand what you are getting at, because it seems to me that you’re attempting to say that SSM is wrong because it would create families that are somehow wrong in your eyes. So you say it doesn’t have to be retroactive, but in essence you’re still placing judgement on my husband’s rearing, and consequently making assumptions about him that are highly suspect based on… what?
What exactly, leaving all legal reference aside, is your problem with SS families raising children?
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
January 20th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
I’m not posting here because I have a problem with gay people
For some reason, most homophobes say that: I suppose it’s because they perceive gay people as the problem, rather than their own bigotry creating “the problem”.
In any case, if you are claiming you have a problem with adoption in general, can you please answer the question: what positive benefits do you claim for Regina Louise because she wasn’t adopted?
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
January 22nd, 2006 at 5:24 pm
I though most states in the US had done away with legal “illigetimacy”. I know for a fact that Louisiana is one of the few states that still recognizes illegetimaticy. The state strives so hard to prevent children from being born “a bastard” that it will assign legal parentage to a father even if the mother and father were separated at the time of conception.
Because of the states concern for my child’s status, I now have a son that has two “legal” fathers. And in order to fix this, my husband has to do an “interfamily adoption” to fix this irritation. It’s not really an irritation for myself or for my son, because my ex isn’t going to push the issue. But it doesn mean that my son is legally entitled to a part of my ex’s estate when that time comes.
Sorry to be rambling, but I’m recovering from the flu and not all here.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 6:02 am
The right to support from her bioparents and the right to inherit from her bioparents.
I’m sure you’re going to say this doesn’t compensate for being abused. You’re right, but we don’t have to weigh the two up. We could use a guardianship system - she could be put into the permanent care of others without making her parents legal strangers to her. That would allow her to maintain the rights that she would have lost had she been adopted. My objection to the legitmacy of adoptees is that it at the heart of the idea of pretending the old parents never happened. You’re supporting a system which absolves child abusers of the responsibility of financially supporting their children.
The “presumption of legitimacy” is a bit like the “presumption of innocence”. You try to sort people into the right groups, but the system is imperfect - and because of it some people who are illegitimate are wrongly classified as legitimate by the law, just as some of the guilty are wrongly classified as innocent. Sometimes a child is regarded as legitimate because a married couple conspire to hide adultery or the husband is deceived into thinking he is the father. But it’s not correct that biological fatherhood has nothing to do with legitimacy; any more than legal guilt has nothing to do with whether you committed a crime.
It’s simply untrue that the child is legitimate only if the husband legally repudiates the child. Illegitimacy can be demonstrated by a variety of people: such as the mother, the father, and the child. The idea that a man gets fathership of a child because he’s married to the mother - at the expense of the rights of the real father and the child to know his father - is just medieval. (Mendy’s right that some US states are the last holdout of this tradition.)
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 7:27 am
But Regina Louise was NOT adopted, so by your logic, she should of received the above two items. It is pretty obvious that she did not get support from her bioparents, nor did she inherit from them. She is a terrific example of exactly what you seem to advocate - no legal adoption, stuck as a ward of the state forever. I’m very puzzled as to why you think that a little bit of monetary support is more important than actually being a part of a family.
You are aware, also, that no law compels parents to leave their estate to their children, aren’t you? So even in your post-adoption world, there is no guarantee that the child would even inherit a dime from the bioparent. So now you’ve made this poor kid grow up without a family, all for some payoff after the kid has grown up that may or may not be there.
Your “legal guardianship” solution sounds barbaric for children. Basically you are saying that a certain class of children who had the misfortune of being born to people who don’t want them must go through life without having a real family they can call their own, living in some sort of limbo between their “legal guardians” and their bioparents. I can’t fathom how this is supposed to be a good thing for kids.
Finally, perhaps you don’t know it, but there already ARE adoption options that don’t pretend that the bio-parents never happened. It is called open adoption. Typically, the birth mother chooses the family for her child. They draw up some sort of agreement allowing a certain amount of contact between the birth parent and the child. Everyone knows the names of who is involved. In this scenario, there is certainly nothing stopping the birth parent from including the child in her will and thus allowing the child to inherit from her, but the adoptive parents are the fully legal parents.
Again, you seem to think that a little bit of money is more important than actually living with someone you get to call “mom” or “dad”. I just can’t fathom that. I guess I just have known enough actual adopted people that I don’t see biology as the single most important factor that defines a family.
This comment was written by SaraS.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 8:09 am
(1) Regina Louise clearly had the *right* to support and to inherit from her bioparents. The system just failed to enforce them (or there was no money to receive).
(2) Laws do exist which prevent you from doing things such as leaving all your money to your mistress, and leaving your wife or dependent children with nothing. You are simply unaware of them. If you die without a will there are also laws which specify the default for administering your estate and which give your children priority.
(3) “I’m very puzzled as to why you think that a little bit of monetary support is more important than actually being a part of a family.” I don’t think monetary support is more important that a family, I just don’t think we need to choose between the two.
(4) You’re arguing against a figment of your imagination, rather than my actual position. I’m not at all suggesting that children remain wards of the state or aren’t placed in a permenant family. I’m simply saying that doing things like falsifiying birth certificates and cutting all legal ties with the bioparents is not needed.
(5) I’m glad you brought up open adoption. It’s a move in the right direction. It’s still a partial juryrigged solution for voluntary adoptions. But not everyone get to choose whether an adoption takes place. And not everyone who doesn’t get to choose is blame worthy. If the adoption isn’t your choice you don’t get to pick the birth parents and get to make a contract with them.
(6) Even if identities are known there are things which stop the birth parent from allowing the child to inherit from her. Tax law puts your children in a different position regarding exemptions to people who aren’t your children. And as far as the law is concerned your adopted children are strangers.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 8:51 am
Good grief — everytime someone asks you what are the benefits of NOT being legally adopted, you state two reasons that are all about money. Is it any wonder that it seems that you value some possible monetary support and inheiritance over the benefit of being legally related to the people raising you?
Regarding the Regina Louise story, I am still not convinced that receiving some sort of inheiritance from her bioparent would have compensated for growing up without a family.
I simply don’t see how your system can work. What is a “permanent family” if the parents can’t become legal parents of the child? Who has control over all the day-to-day parenting things, the “guardian” or the “real parent?” If the guardian wants the kid to go to school A but the bioparent prefers school B, who decides? Are the guardians essentially just babysitters, taking care of the child since the bioparent can’t/didn’t want to? Do they have to negotiate all the major decisions with the bioparent? How is that good for the child? Since the bioparent is still the legal parent, can she change her mind and claim custody at any time?
If the guardians DO have control, well, how is this any different from an open adoption? Other than the fact that the child can now inherit from someone he/she is not living with? Keeping in mind that this inheritance will probably come long after the kid has grown up.
As for the tax issues with inheiritance, that is a good point. So, in your system, how would this work? Would the child be able to inheirit as a child from BOTH the guardian and the bioparent, or just one of them? Should the guardians be required to treat their own bio-children and “adopted” children differently in THEIR wills?
This comment was written by SaraS.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 10:38 am
I don’t think monetary support is more important that a family, I just don’t think we need to choose between the two.
Oh, come off it, Nik. You are choosing between the two, and you are saying that monetary support is more important. I asked you to identify the positive benefits for Regina Louise in not being adopted: and you came up with her having the legal right to monetary support and a hypothetical inheritance. You are saying that money is more important that having a real family.
I’m not at all suggesting that children remain wards of the state or aren’t placed in a permenant family.
Actually, that’s precisely what you’re saying. You’re arguing that adoption is bad: therefore, for children whose parents abandon them or abuse them, you are arguing that, for the sake of the money they’re entitled to (but may never get) they ought to remain wards of the state and - even if they get a temporary placement - never be legally adopted. The situation Regina Louise was in: that’s why I asked you to come up with positive benefits for her, and what you came up with was that she had the legal right to monetary support.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 10:49 am
You try to sort people into the right groups, but the system is imperfect - and because of it some people who are illegitimate are wrongly classified as legitimate by the law, just as some of the guilty are wrongly classified as innocent.
Guilt and innocence matter, of course; but in today’s society, illegitimate/legitimate are virtually meaningless terms. You seem to be confused, as I said before, between “legally the child of” and the classic meaning of legitimate “child born to a married couple”. By either definition, however, a child classified as legitimate by the law is legitimate - that’s how legitimacy works. You’re trying to mix up questions of biological parentage with legitimacy, which really don’t belong there.
Illegitimacy can be demonstrated by a variety of people: such as the mother, the father, and the child. The idea that a man gets fathership of a child because he’s married to the mother - at the expense of the rights of the real father and the child to know his father - is just medieval.
Oh dear, Nik, you really do need to study a little law. The facts are the facts.
You’re right that either the mother or her husband could assert that the child has another father than the husband.
But, if mother and husband both assert that the child is theirs, and their names go on the child’s birth certificate is the child’s parents, the child is legitimate, and legally the child of both mother and husband. It’s not medieval, but only the law prior to DNA tests, that unless the mother’s husband could prove her child was not his - that he was absolutely not having sex with her at the time the child was conceived, or (if this was after when blood-group inheritance testing was understood) if he could prove that the child could not be his by blood group testing, then he was the child’s legal father. We’re not talking about medieval times: we’re talking about the recent past.
A man who isn’t married to the mother who claims to be the child’s father has no legal claim on the child, and no right to demand DNA tests of the child to prove his claim.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 11:19 am
Bollocks I am. Given a choice between monetary support and an abusive child being adopted, I’d choose adoption. That isn’t a choice I should have to make, there’s no reason she shouldn’t have had a new family and the rights to support from her old one. Why are you supporting the right of child abusers not to financially support their children?
This is just not true. In fact there are (two) famous recent examples of it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4320827.stm
Arguments over what is the case aside, do you think the above situation should be the case?
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 11:42 am
Because I don’t see any way to make it workable without putting the child in danger.
If bioparent is paying child support for the child, I would expect that bioparent is going to expect something in return — visitation, decision-making authority for certain matters, veto power over where the “guardians” take the child, etc. So basically, in exchange for a few dollars (how much $$ do you expect someone who gave up a child to have), you’re handing control over the child to an abuser.
If we’re talking about people who have had their children removed against their will, the danger is even greater, since the bioparent is REALLY going to resent having to send those checks out.
This comment was written by SaraS.Report this comment to the moderators
January 23rd, 2006 at 1:38 pm
nik: Given a choice between monetary support and an abusive child being adopted, I’d choose adoption.
That’s not what you said in the case of Regina Louise. For Regina Louise, you said her advantage was the right to financial support - not even that she actually got it; just that she had a right to it. Of course, if she’d been adopted, she would have had the right to financial support from her adoptive mother - and would have got financial support, along with what you may consider to be of less value than money, but others think otherwise: love and caring.
Why are you supporting the right of child abusers not to financially support their children?
Why are you supporting the right of child abusers to remain in legal control of their children’s lives?
This is just not true. In fact there are (two) famous recent examples of it.
Did you miss a necessary point in this news story: “Because of uncertainty about paternity, several weeks ago it was agreed with Mrs Quinn that a DNA test would be carried out. ”
In what world do you live that you imagine it is lawful for someone who is no legal relation to a minor child to demand that a DNA sample shall be taken from that child without the consent of the child’s legal guardians?
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 9:54 am
Jes;
There are two options:
(1) Adoption. Child has right to financial support from adoptive parents (and love and caring from adoptive parents).
(2) Permanent Guardianship. Child has right to financial support from guardians and bioparents (and love and caring from guardians).
I think (1) is better than (2). I think in cases where the parents aren’t abusive there could be even greater advantages. As far as I can see, all you’re going is insinuating that .
How about a world in which people who are the child’s parents should have a legal relation to the child? I realise that’s not a situation you approve of, but it is the world we live in. It the earlier link wasn’t explicit enough. How about this one?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4066565.stm
Please let me know if you can reconcile this with you opinion that “A man who isn’t married to the mother who claims to be the child’s father has no legal claim on the child, and no right to demand DNA tests of the child to prove his claim. “
SaraS;
In situations where one parent has abused the child, but the other has not, courts regularly remove all control over the child from the abusive parent. But because the child hasn’t been adopted the abusive parent still remains a legal parent, and is still liable for support. I think your fears are unfounded, as a situation similar to the one proposed is already happening without the problems you anticipate.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 9:57 am
Sorry for the broken sentence above. As far as I can see, all you’re going is insinuating that adoptive parents will only be able to love the children they take in if the childen are utterly cut off from their bioparents.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 10:37 am
nik: I think (1) is better than (2).
So do I. So basically, you’re completely retracting everything you said earlier? Okay.
As far as I can see, all you’re going is insinuating that adoptive parents will only be able to love the children they take in if the childen are utterly cut off from their bioparents.
No, you’re making that up completely - presumably because your earlier opinion, which you say you have now abandoned, that money trumps love, embarrasses you. Good. You should be embarrassed.
How about a world in which people who are the child’s parents should have a legal relation to the child?
They do. A child’s parents have a legal relationship to the child. A child’s bioparents don’t, necessarily. That’s the world we both live in. Legal relationship trumps genetic relationship.
Q&A: Blunkett paternity battle
Good grief. So, basically, any man at all has a right to demand genetic tests of any child, against the will of the child’s parents, if he claims that he’s the child’s father? How… revolting, and how intrusive. No, I hadn’t realized that: I assumed that it would be necessary to get the consent of at least one of the child’s parents before it would be legal to take genetic samples from the child. I was aware that Kimberly Quinn had consented.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
January 25th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Jes, I got (1) and (2) the wrong way around. I shouldn’t have speedwrote the post. (2) is better than (1).
Re: Blunkett/Quinn.
In law the child’s parents are the bioparents (aside from adoption/donation). Sometimes the bioparents are falsely identified, so someone wrongly gets put down as the father. But the principle is quite clear.
If you want to spell out your problem with a strict biological approach to parenthood I love to here them. But I’m not sure how any other situation is defensible.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
potremmo non adattarci mai alle nuove norme sociali. Proprio come non ci siamo adattati alle automobili, all’economia del settore terziario, o una prospettiva di vita più lunga. TRatto e TRadotto da ALAS (a blog), più precisamente daqui. …e la cosa più triste, è che qualcuno di Voi avrà letto questo elenco di idiozie facendo continui cenni di assenso con la testa e non intuendo minimamente che il tutto è stato scritto con il massimo
This comment was written by "Povero Dio tirato in ballo dagli uomini [...].Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2006 at 4:55 am
Nik: In law the child’s parents are the bioparents
In law, the child’s parents are the parents named on the birth certificate.
But I’m not sure how any other situation is defensible.
Then you need to study the law a little more: the principle that a child’s legal parents need not be a child’s bioparents is quite clearly defended in law. I don’t have time or energy to re-educate you.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2006 at 5:28 am
Jesurgilsac writes:
I think that’s the point of demanding genetic tests — establishing that he is, in fact, the child’s parent. Whether the appropriate legal safeguards can be established to prevent unrelated men from demanding blood tests of unrelated children is a different matter.
And no, names on birth certificates don’t create an unrebuttable presumption of paternity in all jurisdictions. Cites on request.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2006 at 6:57 am
Whether the appropriate legal safeguards can be established to prevent unrelated men from demanding blood tests of unrelated children is a different matter.
Well, plainly not. Of course this has nothing whatsoever to do with same-sex marriage (neither does nik’s feeling that children ought to be forced to stay in contact with abusive parents, of course), but I have to say that I am shocked and appalled if the law permits a man with no legal relationship to a child to demand DNA tests.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2006 at 7:13 am
Jesurgilsac writes:
Well, it’s been that way in many jurisdictions for quite a while. It’s how paternity is established. In my state, a biological father who is not acknowledged by the child’s mother as the biological father can open a case through the state AG’s office. To the best of my knowledge this is the most common legal situation. A very few states have an unrebuttable presumption of paternity on the husband, assuming the mother is married to someone other than the child’s biological father.
And, yes, this has nothing to do with SSM.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2006 at 8:42 am
So any Joe Blow could claim paternity of my husband’s and my children and require a DNA test to settle the question? Even if I had never seen him in my life? What a bizarre thought. I can’t imagine why anyone would, given that unless my husband has an unknown identical twin out there somewhere the test would be negative, but it would indeed be creepy and intrusive. I suppose the presumption is that no man would make such a claim just for the hell of it.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Lu: I suppose the presumption is that no man would make such a claim just for the hell of it.
You hope. I think it could get spooky if a stalker realized that he could harass a woman with a child by this method, perfectly legally. Ugh.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Jes;
I think your mistaken about birth certificates. The idea is that the child’s biological father is named on them. Not that the mother gets a free pick of which man she wants to be the father - it’s a legal document - deliberately falsely naming someone is perjury.
If someone’s named on the birth certificate it’s presumed that he’s the father (because both him and the mother give testimony to that effect). But if this is shown to be false he no longer his parental responsibility ends.
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/nm/scotland/family_parent/family_family_scotland/birth_certificates_scotland.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,1649600,00.html
This is the flip side of men being identified against their will as fathers for child support, that’s also an intrusion. Though not one you get people fuming about.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
January 28th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
So any Joe Blow could claim paternity of my husband’s and my children and require a DNA test to settle the question?
It depends on your state. Some states do not allow a third party to raise a paternity claim to a married couple’s child. (that is, they don’t allow Alleged Boyfriend to claim that he is the actual father of Husband’s child with Wife.)
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
January 30th, 2006 at 6:55 pm
here
This comment was written by camtarn.org // slow transmissions.Report this comment to the moderators
January 31st, 2006 at 5:57 pm
4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
This comment was written by Ashley Bryan.* ok first of all, what era are you living in? divorce is not illegal, blacks can marry whites.. and women are not property. If you think that then you deserve a swift kick in the a– rear.
&
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
* religions vary from christianity ( ugghh) to Satanism. [heh :) ]
and last but not least..
m is for moron. figure that one out..they oughta ban numbskulls like you from letting you speak your opinion. The next time you’ve got somethin to say. ( well type. but now its say) raise your hand and put it over your mouth. you’re input isn’t wanted and you can’t claim to be a real ‘american’ due to the fact that you don’t accept a vast majority of america’s social class. ignorant.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 31st, 2006 at 8:57 pm
m is for moron.
There’s one every day.
They won’t read the comments.
They’re too far away.
They can’t tell sarcasm
From a punch in the face
But with their fine wisdom
They show us our place
M is for moron
This comment was written by Jake Squid.A fine one indeed
Is this Ashley Bryan
Who seems not to read
Report this comment to the moderators
February 1st, 2006 at 12:20 am
Look out, Randy Newman. Stand back, Mose Allison. Jake Squid is on the move. :D
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
February 1st, 2006 at 4:02 am
I find Ashley’s statements clear, compelling and persuasive.
Unfortunately, I am unable to determine what exactly I am being persuaded of, and thus, I return to my original thoughts. Whatever those may have been.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 1st, 2006 at 8:08 am
Something to do with your Fresca habit and your looming job interview ?
No, wait. Those are my thoughts. Never mind.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2006 at 10:48 am
this is a hilarious and well-thought-out sarcastic response to a serious issue. a welcome break in all the boring research.
This comment was written by Celes.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2006 at 10:56 am
:D
This comment was written by Celes.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2006 at 9:55 pm
Alas, A Blog
This comment was written by Elfinarium.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2006 at 12:39 pm
I’m a straight woman and have more than one gay friend. I can tell you that none of them are nearly as concerned about obtaining marrying rights in order to raise kids as they are about the LEGAL RIGHTS that come with marriage in the way our society is currently set up. The issue at hand are the LEGAL RIGHTS first and foremost. And it’s unfair not to give gay couples these right when straight couples have them. I’m talking about such things as hospital visits, health decision, tax benefits, health insurance, inheritance, etc etc. THAT’s what they would like to have. Most of them won’t even care if you name this union “marriage”. If it bothers someone that much to use that term, use something else. Who cares? As long as they are given the same rights for being in a committed relationship as the straight couples since they are sharing their income, their lives, etc they would be happy.
This comment was written by IC.Report this comment to the moderators
January 28th, 2007 at 9:13 am
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/01/15/ten-reasons-same-sex-marriage-is-wrong/
This comment was written by Mental Diarrhea.Report this comment to the moderators
October 30th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Can I get an AMEN to that! oh and HELLLLLLLL YEAH!
This comment was written by Timothy.Report this comment to the moderators
October 30th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Wait, you’re saying that if a couple uses birth control, the marriage should be annulled??
lol
should we make marriage of post menopausal women illegal too?
This comment was written by casey.Report this comment to the moderators