A 90% solution?
David Blankenhorn, who came out against gay marriage in his recent book The Future of Marriage, now says he favors giving same-sex couples "90% civil unions." Under his proposal, gay couples would get all the rights and benefits of marriage under federal and state law -- but he would leave state laws (whatever they currently are) untouched on questions related to same-sex parenting.
This is a big step for a prominent opponent of gay marriage. Blankenhorn is breaking the almost uniform silence among gay-marriage opponents on the question of what to do to meet the needs of gay families.
It's utterly amazing that so many can get away with not doing this. So many argue for "marriage between man and woman only" without ever acknowledging or even mentioning the existence of gay people, much less explaining where and how gay people and gay families (which will exist no matter what) will fit into society.
people get married for the tax advantage. people get married to give someone instant citizenship. people get married because it makes it easier to get promoted/elected. people get married just because they are bored of being alone. people stay married because of prenups. people get married because the other person is rich/famous. etc... why aren't you advocation for all of these things to be made illegal or otherwise stopped?
Only if she can promise to put together a coherent argument. Paragraph upon paragraph of mystical fuzziness about the spiritual meaning of marriage, combined with a general unresponsiveness to the counter-arguments raised in the comment section - that just isn't adequate as a persuasive tool.
This, of course, will worsen discrimination against the bachelor/bachelorette lifestyle choice. What is the compelling government purpose for that?
Finally, I will be able to bring couple on new wives from some poor countries and live with them happily, instead of chasing girls and cheat on my wife.
So we debate the issue here several times here and wonder what the heck is wrong with him. and NOW he comes out mostly in favor.
Do you think he could have done just a little bit more research before he came about with initial position? Sheesh, on a topic like this, a responsible pundit wouldn't just write his initial impressions, only to have to backtract. Who is this guy anyway?
But I am still a ways away from accepting Gay (or polygamous) marriages. And, in particular, I am opposed to giving Gays (including Lesbians - in particular) equal rights as to parenting and adoption. I can accept that two parents of one sex are often better than one, but still have yet to see any good data that controls for education, income, etc. where two parents of the same sex are as good as one of each in raising kids. And, until I do, I am going to oppose any legal status that gives Gays (including Lesbians) equal priority in becoming parents.
I also find there to be something fundamental about marriage in society, and thus am not ready to provide this to Gays for that reason.
(I appologize to any Lesbians who might be offended by my calling out such, but as a male, I am esp. worried about fatherless families - overall, motherless families with engaged fathers tend to do fairly well, but fatherless families don't seem to do nearly as well as those with fathers).
As funny as it gets, but I am seriously for a Civil Unions, because Civil Union means anything goes. According to constitution everyone have equal rights. If government recoginzes a union between two people then why shuould not union of three or more people to be recoginzed? So far no one have an answer. But benefits are great! If polygamy become reality, we are going to see tremendous increase in population of the United States, since every man and every woman can have a union with as many men and women as possible, so they can immigrate freely, and I believe we going to have more women then men. I think this is exciting.
That's precisely my point. When you end the social norm that people marry when they have children, people will marry and divorce for a variety of reasons. The problem is that they don't marry when they do have children, leading to the social dysfunctions that occur with single parent families. Lastly, I'm not arguing that any of these relationships should be made illegal, just that the government shouldn't subsidize them. Why should someone get citizenship or a tax advantage solely on the basis of a romantic relationship?
Suppose gay person has children from former (opposite sex) relationship. This gay person has custody of the children, then enters a relationship with another person of the same sex. Together they raise the children from birth. When the children are ten years old, both their biological parents die. Are you saying that you'd treat those children as orphans, wards of the state and take them away from the only parent they know, a person who has raised them from birth?
Finally, I will be able to bring couple on new wives from some poor countries and live with them happily, instead of chasing girls and cheat on my wife.
You have your logic backwards. Every society today that allows polygamy prohibits same sex marriage. Conversely, every society today that allows same sex marriage prohibits polygamy. Therefore, if you would like to have polygamy you should oppose same sex marriage and if you oppose polygamy you should support same sex marraige.
So which is it/ I think society just made one more step to one definition vs the other.
A short war of extermination can be won by brute power. An ordinary war is won by logistics. But to determine who will win a truly long war, you must look to demographics.
So married, opposite sex couples shouldn't get any citizenship or tax advantage from that relationship unless and until they have children?
Yep, that is how human society works, in case you do not know. Are you willing to invest your money into company that produce nothing, I do not think so. But somehow you force us(society) to invest money in gay-marriage where return on ivestment equals 0(ZERO).
We should support families because in 75-80% of marriages couples have children. Childless marriages in turn, serve as role models for young people.
So, wait, you want to encorage couples to have a child that they do not want in order to get citizenship or tax advantages. What type of life would a child like that have?
And anyway, it's not as if gay couples don't have children. I have known plenty of gay couples that have kids (biological or adopted).
So, wait, you want to encorage couples to have a child that they do not want in order to get citizenship or tax advantages. What type of life would a child like that have?
And anyway, it's not as if gay couples don't have children. I have known plenty of gay couples that have kids (biological or adopted).
That's precisely my point. When you end the social norm that people marry when they have children, people will marry and divorce for a variety of reasons. The problem is that they don't marry when they do have children, leading to the social dysfunctions that occur with single parent families. Lastly, I'm not arguing that any of these relationships should be made illegal, just that the government shouldn't subsidize them. Why should someone get citizenship or a tax advantage solely on the basis of a romantic relationship?
I think you completely missed my point. If you think marriage should only be for the children, that's fine...but you have to apply it equally. Where are the calls for ending the tax advantages of marriage? Where are the referenda for making divorce harder or making it harder to become a single parent or eliminate the social and fiscal benefits of marriage not related to childrearing? There aren't any. The opposition to gay marriage is based on a gays are icky feeling couched in neutral non-bigoted language, like "marriage is only about the kids".*
*i realize there are some people out there who hold the beliefs i just described, but they are rare and have little voice in the gay marriage debates.
I think it is very simple. There is a phenomenon when man marries a woman a couple have children in at least 80% of the cases.
So, why should not we support that phenomenon. If man marries a man or woman marries a woman probability to have children is 0(ZERO).
So it is obvious that marriage should be only between a man and a woman, otherwise there is no point to have a marriage at all.
Actually there are calls from a growing singles-rights movement to end the tax benefits of marriage (see Curmudgeon above). Also, there has been a, largely unsuccessful, attempt to promote "covenent marriage".
I would personnally eliminate no-fault divorce in families with children. People can still get divorced, but the person filing for divorce would recieve less consideration in custody and division of assets. Also, I believe we'd probably reduce both crime and poverty if we changed social programs to provide greater benefits to families with two biological parents. (And yes, it has to be biological parents to draw most men, and not just the economically viable, into the social structure.)
Finally, I've never said that gays are "icky". I personally don't care what people do in their bedrooms. Also, please note my original post:
What I do care about is that society recognize my relationship with my children.
Furthermore, the idea that marriage is solely about the promotion of procreation, and has nothing to do with childrearing, is an insult to all adopted children and their parents. Adoption is not a second-rate kind of parenting and should not be viewed that way.
(I also wonder what will happen to this argument when science makes it possible for people of the same sex to procreate, as it inevitably will).
Um, what about adoptive parents? Every time I hear this obesesion with biology I actually feel very sorry for adopted kids who must think they're freaks or second class children if they hear this. I'm OK with trying to foster two parent families; I agree, two parents are generally best and we should support such. However I don't see why we need to emphasize biological parentage. It's a sad reality that some children must be (and yes should be) given up for adoption, and also that some parents die when their children are still young-- and perhaps the surviving parent will remarry (the experience of my childhood when my mother died when I was 9, and my father remarried, giving me a step-mother I remain close to to this day). Anyone who is willing to raise a child not his or her own is, IMO, a moral hero and is just as deserving of social support as a natural parent. Genes alone do not make a parent and should not be privileged over conscious commitment to what is a major responsibility.
But you obviously don't care about society recognizing other parents' relationships with their children, such as through adoption or artificial insemination, so your view that gays should not be allowed to marry is entirely based upon selfishness and paranoia--who, exactly, is taking away your relationship with your children?
Not everyone has their biological father or mother around to raise them. Can they just go to hell, or what?
No. Why should they?
Not true. Gay people can adopt, and many do. Society has a big interest in getting as many children out of foster care and into real homes and families, and gay as doing a great job on that. Society can and does recognize that this is valuable, and that's an inexpensive return on investment. Why shouldn't it be credited with marriage or at least civil unions, to protect said family?
What are your standards for judging success in raising kids?
This sounds a little bit like that argument I used to hear mixed race marriages . . . "I feel sorry for the kids."
Perhaps gays can do a perfectly acceptable job of child raising, but the problems result from the social stigma imposed from outside.
And one thing I've learned about parenting: Everything thinks they are raising the kids right, and the neighbors are awful at it.
Marriage equality issues are about equality of access. Yes the government has a right to regulate even basic rights, it has no right to totally proscribe or selectively ignore them.
The silly polygamy arguments are just that - silly. This is an issue about every citizen having a reasonable opportunity to license the civil contract of marriage and while there are people who can only reasonably be expected to do so with someone of a particular gender there are no known individuals who can only do so with multiple partners. Limiting everyone to a single spouse is a very different issue than saying that some citizens can not have any reasonably acceptable spouse.
And the idea that the ONLY reason society licenses marriages is for children is simplistic. There are many non-child related benefits to the individuals and society from encouraging stable family environments. Add in that 50% of US children are being raised by their non-genetic contributors and its obvious that trying to put procreation as the sole reason for licensing marriage is a argumentative ploy and not to be taken seriously.
Marriage is good for the citizens and for society regardless of the gender combination of the couple or whether they are currently raising children or not. Society benefits as do the individuals. How can anyone even rationally support the contrary?
Institution of marriage is a tool that helps to bring man and woman together with hope that they concieve a child and then stay together for a long time rearing that child and giving him/her an idea what the marriage is.
Every person in U.S. have the exactly the same right to marry a person of his/her choice. Same sex is not a marriage, and there is no such right as right of free interpretation of word marriage.
The right to marry is an natural right that derives from our biology and belongs to the individual regardless of the gender of their spouse. Regardless of the gender of their spouse, regardless of whether they household directly raises children, the individual and society benefits from the individual being married.