Gay marriage and families

...the kids are more than all right

Researchers at Melbourne University in Australia collected data on 500 children across the country and found that kids growing up in gay and straight families matched pretty equally when it came to self-esteem, emotional well-being and the amount of time they spent with parents; but when it came to overall health and family cohesion, the children of gay parents did even better than the national average.

Interesting - and good timing

:-)

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

Excellent info and very interesting stats in another related article It would seem that lesbians are championing the gay family cause by a huge margin.

The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families collected data on 500 children nationwide, up to the age of 17.

Of the 315 gay, lesbian and bisexual parents who completed the globally recognised Child Health Questionnaire, 80 per cent were women.

An interim report found there was no statistical difference between children of same-sex couples and the rest of the population on indicators including self-esteem, emotional behaviour and the amount of time spent with parents.
However, children of same-sex couples scored higher than the national average for overall health and family cohesion, measuring how well the family members get along

Former prime minister Kevin Rudd said the wellbeing of children had been ''the sole remaining obstacle'' to him supporting same-sex marriage, which he announced in a blog post last month.

And it goes to show that the argument that the family unit will break down as a result of gay marriage is actually quite laughable - these gay families are on a percentile basis more likely to be a strong unit.

reply to post by rockhndr

Originally posted by rockhndr
Let me ask you this...IF you could save ONE child from going through those experiences you went through at 5 and 17...wouldn't you???

To be perfectly honest, it depends on what I would have to do to save them from it. What's the trade off? If it's to deny rights to a group of people? I wouldn't do it.

But I have a belief that we all experience what we need to and it makes us who we are today. Regardless how traumatic those experiences were for me, they made me STRONG!

(more tomorrow - dinner and stuff. Please check back because I'm really enjoying our discussion!)

reply to post by markosity1973

I understand that not every situation is going to turn out to be wonderful - but those less than wonderful situations happen in traditional families too

As this becomes more and more common it will become fairly obvious - there are good parents, and there are bad parents - and none of it will have anything to do with whether they're gay or straight

Pretty much what you'd expect

:-)

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


I couldn't have said it better myself.

Quite simply, for gay parenting to have any form of legitimacy, the results (the final outcome of the children's success and wellbeing in all areas) simply needs to be the same as traditional heterosexual famililes.

The preliminary findings of that study show that in some areas the gay families are doing better than traditional families. To me personally that result is surprising (in a good way)

Personally, I am quite curious to know what those areas are and how / why they are scoring higher. Maybe there is something in the data that can be shared with everyone to help enrich family life across the board.

The thing is I don't think government should be involved in it at all. But if it absolutely has to be, then government avenues should be provided for all consenting adults to marry whoever they choose. That said, any law dictating that a church must provide marriage services to gay couples in contravention of their doctrinal beliefs should absolutely not happen. It would violate the first amendment to do so.

All individuals require equal protection under the law. States and locales should not be precluding any group of individuals from exercising their personal rights.

But government should not violate the rights of one group to secure the rights of another.

To me it isn't about the "values". There are plenty of examples of homosexual and heterosexual couples that foster toxic relationships for themselves and any children they may have. There are also plenty(I would say a majority) of couples on both ends of the sexual orientation spectrum that foster perfectly healthy relationships and safe environments for their children. No one should ever get in the way of people in general trying to be good parents. But that is NOT what this issue is really about.

You are not going to get people who are religiously opposed to this to change their minds about it, even if they are willing to be tolerant of gay people in other avenues. You are also NOT going to be able to convince gay people and the supporters of marriage equality to support the status quo. We must find a solution that honors the rights of all.

reply to post by markosity1973


I was curious about that too - here you go, another article and pretty much everything we need to know about the actual study:
Children Same-Sex Parents: New Study Says Gay Couples Have Happier And Healthier Kids

ACHESS – The Australian study of child health in same-sex families: background research, design and methodology

reply to post by projectvxn


Yes, the middle road is the one that needs to be taken. At the moment, the laws are biased against homosexual people and therefore there is an inequality for gay citizens.

The laws need to change, but such changes simply need to equalise the rights of gay people. Other people's rights will still be protected as they always have been. I would agree about freedom of religion being protected, but said religions need to drop their 'God hates' stance towards homosexuals too.

reply to post by markosity1973


Religious groups need not change their tune. It is not a crime to be intolerant of another group of people. And attempting to criminalize such things would lead to thought crime. That's a slippery slope. Would it be nice if they were more tolerant? Sure. Should they be forced to change? No.

reply to post by projectvxn

What is it that's being criminalized?

Anyway, I get tired of using the words religious groups, when it really isn't all of everybody or anybody in any one group.

But, for those that still find all this to be problematic - they're free to continue not liking it. The only thing they're being forced to do is give up trying to deny that:

...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

After all - some stuff is pretty self evident

:-)

reply to post by projectvxn

You are not going to get people who are religiously opposed to this to change their minds about it, even if they are willing to be tolerant of gay people in other avenues. You are also NOT going to be able to convince gay people and the supporters of marriage equality to support the status quo. We must find a solution that honors the rights of all.

I agree with you pretty much - except the part about the rights. If we're going to talk rights - they can't be separate. Rights have to be the same for everyone. It's going to get complicated - I don't think we should force a church to perform ceremonies against their will - I'm not sure that we can even if we want to

But we agree - nobody has the right to deny anyone the right to marry - or to have families

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

I agree with you pretty much - except the part about the rights. If we're going to talk rights - they can't be separate. Rights have to be the same for everyone.

I'm not sure where the disagreement is. I don't believe I made this argument at all.

reply to post by projectvxn


Nobody is forcing Churches to perform gay marriages. Gays want their marriage be recognized by Federal Government, not the Church. The latter has nothing to do with this situation, but still fighting tooth and nail against it. Hetero-married couples are entitled to more than 1000 federal marriage benefits while Gays are not. Gay people simply want to be treated equally on the federal level, but the Church is fighting to keep Gay people 2nd class by opposing the repeal of discriminatory Section 3 of DOMA that codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns.

Example:

Say, we have 2 hypothetical atheist couples. One gay, the other is straight. Suppose Helga is from Sweden and marries Steve from the States. Helga is now eligible for Green Card as a relative of an American Citizen. Likewise, Jason from UK marries Matt from the US in any of the states(US) or countries where gay marriage is legal, but Matt cannot sponsor Jason for Green Card because their marriage is not federally recognized. WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CHURCH?

reply to post by projectvxn


I'm not arguing projectvxn - we do agree. I just got hung up on this:

We must find a solution that honors the rights of all.

Maybe I misunderstood you, or I'm being too - picky. The rights of those that oppose any of this aren't being challenged. They'll have the same rights as they've always had - they just won't be able to deny other people those same rights. So, not sure how we can find a solution that honors the rights of all - except by ensuring that we all have the exact same rights

They will of course still have the right to not like that :-)

Ya know,FYI... gay marriage is part of the UN agenda 21 as a form of population reduction. Just thouht I'd throw that out there. That won't necessarily stop a gay couple from finding a surrogate if they really wanted a child.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by projectvxn

 

You are not going to get people who are religiously opposed to this to change their minds about it, even if they are willing to be tolerant of gay people in other avenues. You are also NOT going to be able to convince gay people and the supporters of marriage equality to support the status quo. We must find a solution that honors the rights of all.

I agree with you pretty much - except the part about the rights. If we're going to talk rights - they can't be separate. Rights have to be the same for everyone. It's going to get complicated - I don't think we should force a church to perform ceremonies against their will - I'm not sure that we can even if we want to

But we agree - nobody has the right to deny anyone the right to marry - or to have families

What part do you not understand here. The way it should be and I believe projectvxn is saying this as well. The State has an obligation to treat a homosexual couple the same under the law as they do a heterosexual couple. While he doesn't necessarily feel the State should be in the marriage business at all the reality is it is.

As this applies to churches they must be left free to decide who they will and won't marry. This is what churches do to hetero couples and you can't very well force them to marry anyone they do not feel obligated to marry. The thing is you do not need to use the force of law to make churches marry same sex couples. There will be some that choose to and others that choose not to. Eventually most will marry same sex couples on their own just like most of them freely marry divorced couples now. Bottom line money talks, and when those that won't see the revenue they are missing out on they will quickly change their tune.

P.S. sorry I was just skimming, you caught me. yeah you are in line with the way I take what he is saying. Make it legally equal let the churches decide for themselves.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


What part of what I don't understand do you not understand?

:-)

See my next post. I'm not disagreeing - just nitpicking

Just wasn't sure what he meant about honoring the rights of everyone - one group will gain rights - the other will lose none. As I said (and you quoted): I don't think we should force a church to perform ceremonies against their will - I'm not sure that we can even if we want to

Could be he meant exactly what I just said

reply to post by projectvxn

Originally posted by projectvxn
We must find a solution that honors the rights of all.

I agree with your position completely. The "rights of all" are:
Rights of citizens to marry who they want.
Rights of churches to disapprove and refuse to marry who they want.

I'm sure some people will press the issue and try to legally force specific churches to marry gay couples at some point (it is their right to try), but I hope our government is smart enough to deny that.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by markosity1973

 

Religious groups need not change their tune. It is not a crime to be intolerant of another group of people. And attempting to criminalize such things would lead to thought crime. That's a slippery slope. Would it be nice if they were more tolerant? Sure. Should they be forced to change? No.

It was not my intention for laws to be changed when I said that religion needs to drop the God hates stance against gay people. What I more meant is that they perhaps should voluntarily refocus their energy on the positive messages that Christianity has to offer. I grew up in the church, I've seen both the good and bad side of what it can offer.

Freedom of speech is an important right. But with that right comes responsibility and if all that time and effort spent on antagonising the gay community were spent on say helping the homeless and the needy society would really benefit from it.

reply to post by rockhndr

Originally posted by rockhndr
Maybe once the stigma comes off the whole issue we can move forward??

I think it works the other way around... We stop denying the rights of the people and then, those who oppose get used to it and become more accepting of it. (Or most of them do, anyway. Even though black people gained their rights in the 50s and 60s, there are still stragglers who practice racism.) But before the government "granted" blacks the right to vote, for example, people who oppose had the force and support of the government behind them. They were not likely to "get used to it" without the government forcing the issue.

People like you - kids AND gay parents (and LGBT people in general) - who suffer through the stigma, discrimination and hatred in the struggle for equal rights for gay people, are the "Little Rock Nines" of today. You are the ones taking the brunt of the crap for those who will come in the future. You are the ones who suffer, so that kids of gay parents in the future won't have to.

I have no doubt it's been very painful for you. But that pain is not for nothing. It serves an important purpose in the future of equality for this country. I know it seems weird to say, but you can take pride in your scars, because they mean a more equal tomorrow for us all.

Some kids aren't strong enough to handle what you went through. Some kids of gay parents and gay kids commit suicide because of the pain they endured. You can be proud that you made it through. You can take comfort in the fact that you are strong enough - to be a survivor.