you said
but same-sex couples can (theoretically) adopt. I’m of the mind that a child is better off in a two-parent same-sex household than a single-parent household or the horrible state institutions for the poor children who have no parents.
Wrong you are way wrong
I was put into foster homes all my life growing up , So I know about this
I saw kids with mums and dads.
I did have a foster mum most times and so much wanted a father not another mum
I too wanted my own mum and dad, I wanted mum for comfort, love, sympathy etc
I wanted Dad to teach me about cars, sports, etc
I never would have wanted to mums or two dads
two dads cannot ever tell a girl how she will feel when she goes on her first date
they cannot tell her about puberty and how she will feel
they cannot tell her about how she feels on her first kiss
etc etc
So you are way off on what you said, totally way off
you might think so but I know so from experience
so best not to assume on this
If the family is indeed the foundation of society then the interest of the state in protecting that foundation is self-evident. It's not social engineering but self-preservation. A state which would stand idly by in such circumstances is one not worth standing.
but I am very skeptical that the number of single mothers will increase. People of faith will still get married, and for the others, divorce is so easy these days, what's the difference?
The historical evidence against this "Hey, they'll do their thing and we'll still do ours" argument is simply overwhelming. The very same arguments were once used against abortion, cohabitation of the unmarried, out of wedlock births, premarital sex, birth control, pornography, homosexual acts, and on and on. The warnings that these behaviors could become commonplace behaviors in America were ridiculed as the hyper-alarmist rantings of puritans mere decades ago. The world we now live in stands as a testament to precisely why the government should be concerned with this matter.
People sometimes stay married because of the benefits they get for being married. Otherwise, it’s just a religious thing. If the state offered NO benefits for marraige, there would be no point in anybody getting legally married, it would just be a waste of the 20 bucks for the license.
I guess it is a bit of “social engineering”, but the state’s very existence is “social engineering”. We adopted government to shape society. The society we chose 200+ years ago was one with very limited boundaries, but we did chose boundaries at both the federal and state level.
And the founders recognized that the structure they set of for the federal government, and the existing state governments, could not function without an underlying societal structure, one that is formed by marriage.
Maybe at one time the role of religion was so powerful that you would not need to encourage marriage. But that has long since past. Few churches frown on divorce in a serious way, and society has largely eliminated any stigma.
And yes, divorce is too easy. We forgot that marriage was not just so people could enjoy each other, but was a contract with society to maintain a social construct.
But the state still has a reason to want parents to stay together. By offering bribes of tax credits and access to special treatment, the state can encourage people to stay together.
It’s not just that the father supplies money for the kid. Kids grow up better adjusted if they are raised by their biological parents. And when that is not possible, they also grow up somewhat better if they have two members of the opposite sex in parental roles.
This provides a model for the children to grow up, marry themselves, and procreate, thus perpetuating the species AND continuing a population sufficient for our nation to survive.
Thus, the state has a good reason to “socially engineer” marriages, and the procreation of it’s citizens. I don’t generally like social engineering, but encouraging marriage seems the least entrusive thing the state could do. They aren’t forcing us to get married, just providing benefits for those who do the prefered thing.
As to “discouraging”, I don’t see how the lack of state recognition “discourages” people from forming a relationship. If the only reason you are forming a relationship is because the state gives you benefits, not giving benefits isn’t really “discouraging”.
If the state actually punished people for entering same-sex unions, then you could say it was discouraging them. But I don’t think the lack of encouragement should be equated with discouragement.
Yes, same-sex couples can adopt, and they can even use artificial means to procreate on their own (by “artificial” I simply mean any step which does not involve sex with their partner).
Then the question is whether the benefit of encouraging a same-sex couple to form a union and raise a child is compelling enough for the state to provide preferential treatment for it, over say a single parent.
I simply don’t have enough information to say that same-sex couples provide enough benefit to make it worth special treatment. I probably wouldn’t object to laws ALLOWING same-sex couples to adopt, but I don’t think we need to encourage it.
We have little history to see if same-sex couples form lasting marriage relationships, or how the children of those relationships turn out. In one case, two women got a civil union in vermont. The one woman was artificially impregnated, and had a child. Then she felt abused by the other woman, so she had the union dissolved, moved to Virginia which doesn’t recognize unions or parental rights, and got married to a man.
Now there is a bitter custody fight over the child — a child who does not know her real father, and is being taken part-time from a family which has a step-father up to another state to live with a woman who has no biological relationship with her.
It’s a hard case. I am guessing there will be a lot more hard cases. And when I say the following, a lot of people get mad at me who are on my side, but I believe it so I say it, adoption is better than nothing, but is not as good as biological parents.
There is something INATE in the biological relationship that provides bonding and a sense of belonging. We see that when so many adopted children seek to find their biological parents.
But the counter to that is that in SPECIFIC instances, a single mom can be better than a couple, a gay couple could be better than a straight couple, a group home might work out better than a real family.
But the state can act in generalities. It’s not prohibiting two gay people from entering a contract, settling down together, having a child if they are women, and doing those things that would make them a “couple”.
BTW, I would prefer the state simply get OUT of the marriage business altogether, than to start supporting same-sex unions. Because frankly, I think two biological parents who refuse to marry one another but together raise a child would be better for society than a married male couple adopting that child.
Heck, I think three of four biological parents living together and together raising their biological offspring would be better for society than to gay men adopting a child and raising them.
But that’s my personal opinion.
OK, keep deluding yourself into believing that pointing out the absurdity of "sheep humping is a protected right" constitutes an unintelligent response.
I agree that families are the foundation of society. I disagree with the government engaging in social engineering - once you give them that power, they can take it in any direction, and that's what's happened here.
Yeah, states have only had the power to marry since the Reformation. We got screwed immediately...give or take 500 years.
I agree about special benefits, but I am very skeptical that the number of single mothers will increase.
You're arguing against reality. See next post.
That's one of the biggest causes of abortion.
Can you cite data that supports that?
I'm of the mind that a child is better off in a two-parent same-sex household than a single-parent household or the horrible state institutions for the poor children who have no parents.
1. You may be of the mind, but we have no data to support it.
2. Given the prevalence of drug/alcohol abuse and other destructive behaviors in the gay community, I think that's not a safe bet.
3. I believe most kids who have a single mom would be better off raised by my wife and me, so why don't we remake society's laws so that I'm their dad? All we'll have to do is set up a big federal check for me each month.
Really, I do love the "We're already in the stick house, so moving to the straw house is no big deal" argument. Really a classic.
Gay Marriage? What could it hurt?
Results of gay marriage in Scandinavia.
Results of gay marriage in Holland. (Note: Written before the Dutch decided to legalize polygamy.)