Loading... Comments on: Marriage is for Breeders, Part III: Shooting the Messenger http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=230 Fri, 26 Jun 2015 09:36:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 By: MahNahvu http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=230&cpage=1#comment-2737 MahNahvu Tue, 07 Feb 2006 01:59:22 +0000 http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=230#comment-2737 <i>The ability (or desire) to procreate is not required of heterosexuals who want a civil marriage license. It would be patently unfair to use that as a tool against homosexuals.</i> Which is why I argued above that the state is interested in marriages that provide "nurturing" for both children as well as adults. The ability (or desire) to procreate is not required of heterosexuals who want a civil marriage license. It would be patently unfair to use that as a tool against homosexuals.

Which is why I argued above that the state is interested in marriages that provide “nurturing” for both children as well as adults.

]]>
By: Chad Too http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=230&cpage=1#comment-2736 Chad Too Tue, 07 Feb 2006 00:57:31 +0000 http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=230#comment-2736 Though the debate over raising children is interesting, I still see it as something of a red herring. One big problem with really discussing the gay marriage issue in an LDS context is that we inevitably end up bringing issues into the discussion that are very important to us, but completely irrelevant when it comes to civil marriage. No state requires a married hetero-couple to procreate. No state denies a hetero-couple a civil marriage license if they can't procreate. For that matter, I'm not aware of any state that requires marriage partners to live in the same residence, let alone be sexual with each other. I have married co-workers who have decided they don't want children. Ever. It's not my choice, and I think they'll regret the decision someday, but their civil marriage license is no less valid. The ability (or desire) to procreate is not required of heterosexuals who want a civil marriage license. It would be patently unfair to use that as a tool against homosexuals. Though the debate over raising children is interesting, I still see it as something of a red herring.

One big problem with really discussing the gay marriage issue in an LDS context is that we inevitably end up bringing issues into the discussion that are very important to us, but completely irrelevant when it comes to civil marriage.

No state requires a married hetero-couple to procreate. No state denies a hetero-couple a civil marriage license if they can’t procreate. For that matter, I’m not aware of any state that requires marriage partners to live in the same residence, let alone be sexual with each other.

I have married co-workers who have decided they don’t want children. Ever. It’s not my choice, and I think they’ll regret the decision someday, but their civil marriage license is no less valid.

The ability (or desire) to procreate is not required of heterosexuals who want a civil marriage license. It would be patently unfair to use that as a tool against homosexuals.

]]>
By: Steve EM http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=230&cpage=1#comment-2735 Steve EM Mon, 06 Feb 2006 19:19:31 +0000 http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=230#comment-2735 Where's eunuchville? Where’s eunuchville?

]]>
By: Chris Williams http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=230&cpage=1#comment-2734 Chris Williams Mon, 06 Feb 2006 17:57:00 +0000 http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=230#comment-2734 Where's Silus? Where’s Silus?

]]>
By: Dave Walter http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=230&cpage=1#comment-2733 Dave Walter Mon, 06 Feb 2006 02:51:46 +0000 http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=230#comment-2733 Another of the elephants in the room on this issue is that there are plenty of heterosexual couples who are terrible at raising children. But few complain about them. Contrast that with a Florida judge who removed a child from the home of two nurturing lesbians and placed the kid with the father -- who had served prison time for murdering the woman who was his wife and the child's mother. Another of the elephants in the room on this issue is that there are plenty of heterosexual couples who are terrible at raising children. But few complain about them.

Contrast that with a Florida judge who removed a child from the home of two nurturing lesbians and placed the kid with the father — who had served prison time for murdering the woman who was his wife and the child’s mother.

]]>
By: Base http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=230&cpage=1#comment-2732 Base Sun, 05 Feb 2006 18:55:27 +0000 http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=230#comment-2732 Even if we accept arguendo the assertion that children raised by heterosexual couples will be better equipped to relate to members of both sexes (a claim that seems far from obvious to me), shouldn't the real question be the effect of a prohibitive policy on whether some children are adopted at all? I do not claim to know the numbers but I have often heard that, overall, more children need families than can be placed (please correct me if I am wrong here as my next point flows from the validity of this supposition). I can't believe it could possibly be more in any child's interest to be raised by the State than by a nurturing gay couple. Even if we accept arguendo the assertion that children raised by heterosexual couples will be better equipped to relate to members of both sexes (a claim that seems far from obvious to me), shouldn’t the real question be the effect of a prohibitive policy on whether some children are adopted at all? I do not claim to know the numbers but I have often heard that, overall, more children need families than can be placed (please correct me if I am wrong here as my next point flows from the validity of this supposition).

I can’t believe it could possibly be more in any child’s interest to be raised by the State than by a nurturing gay couple.

]]>
By: A. Nonny Mouse http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=230&cpage=1#comment-2731 A. Nonny Mouse Sat, 04 Feb 2006 23:36:39 +0000 http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=230#comment-2731 <i>Let's be honest and recognize that children are being sucessfully raised worldwide by single parent families. Is this significantly different from raising children in same-sex households?</i> I don't think arguing for parity between single-parent and single-gendered parental units is the right tack to take here: there are all kinds of problems (statistically) with single-parent homes (typically single-mother homes): higher crime rates, higher dropout rates, higher poverty rates, etc. I think most of those statistics preclude your statement about children "being successfully raised worldwide by single parent families." And, I think most of those statistics are due to the single-person nature of the parenting: in general, one parent just doesn't have enough energy and time to provide the same level of care that two can, while providing financially for a family. Additionally, I think it's incredibly premature to say that we have any data about gender relations and single-gender families. We just don't know what this lack of diversity in a family will do to a child, because there simply isn't enough data. It seems to reason though, that in an "ideal" family situation, which I think we'll all agree is what the state should be searching for when it examines a potential adoptive family (ie the state should look for the best possible home for each of its incredibly valuable wards), wherein there is gender diversity in the parental unit, a child will gain enormously in learning to interact with members of both genders in a caretaker role. Let’s be honest and recognize that children are being sucessfully raised worldwide by single parent families. Is this significantly different from raising children in same-sex households?

I don’t think arguing for parity between single-parent and single-gendered parental units is the right tack to take here: there are all kinds of problems (statistically) with single-parent homes (typically single-mother homes): higher crime rates, higher dropout rates, higher poverty rates, etc. I think most of those statistics preclude your statement about children “being successfully raised worldwide by single parent families.” And, I think most of those statistics are due to the single-person nature of the parenting: in general, one parent just doesn’t have enough energy and time to provide the same level of care that two can, while providing financially for a family.

Additionally, I think it’s incredibly premature to say that we have any data about gender relations and single-gender families. We just don’t know what this lack of diversity in a family will do to a child, because there simply isn’t enough data. It seems to reason though, that in an “ideal” family situation, which I think we’ll all agree is what the state should be searching for when it examines a potential adoptive family (ie the state should look for the best possible home for each of its incredibly valuable wards), wherein there is gender diversity in the parental unit, a child will gain enormously in learning to interact with members of both genders in a caretaker role.

]]>
By: MahNahvu http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=230&cpage=1#comment-2730 MahNahvu Sat, 04 Feb 2006 23:36:11 +0000 http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=230#comment-2730 <i>What are your favorite gems from this spectacle we're calling a national debate...</i> One arguement that I rarely hear in the gay marriage debate is the idea that marriage is not so much about raising children as it is about nurturing in general. This point of view is articulated quite well here: http://positiveliberty.com/2005/10/on-nurturing-as-the-true-purpose-of-marriage.html The nurturing model of marriage answers the question posed by Kathy Young, <i>Unless children are an issue, why should the government take an interest in whether we settle down with a steady partner in a sexual relationship?</i> The answer is that the government does have an interest in adults nurturing, caring and providing for each other. <i>. . .the great benefits that children get from marriage do not exhaust or interfere with the good effects that adults may also derive from it. After all, who really wants to grow old alone? It is perhaps the bleakest question in all the modern world. Marriage answers it with the promise that no matter how ill or how deformed we may become in old age, someone will stand beside us until the end. . .</i> What are your favorite gems from this spectacle we’re calling a national debate…

One arguement that I rarely hear in the gay marriage debate is the idea that marriage is not so much about raising children as it is about nurturing in general.

This point of view is articulated quite well here: http://positiveliberty.com/2005/10/on-nurturing-as-the-true-purpose-of-marriage.html

The nurturing model of marriage answers the question posed by Kathy Young, Unless children are an issue, why should the government take an interest in whether we settle down with a steady partner in a sexual relationship?

The answer is that the government does have an interest in adults nurturing, caring and providing for each other. . . .the great benefits that children get from marriage do not exhaust or interfere with the good effects that adults may also derive from it. After all, who really wants to grow old alone? It is perhaps the bleakest question in all the modern world. Marriage answers it with the promise that no matter how ill or how deformed we may become in old age, someone will stand beside us until the end. . .

]]>
By: MahNahvu http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=230&cpage=1#comment-2729 MahNahvu Sat, 04 Feb 2006 22:22:43 +0000 http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=230#comment-2729 <i>Give an extra point or two to a gay couple who legally promises to hire a differently gendered caretaker?</i> We have to assume a child being raised by gay parents is not living in a bubble and will have contact with other humans of various genders. Let's be honest and recognize that children are being sucessfully raised worldwide by single parent families. Is this significantly different from raising children in same-sex households? Give an extra point or two to a gay couple who legally promises to hire a differently gendered caretaker?

We have to assume a child being raised by gay parents is not living in a bubble and will have contact with other humans of various genders. Let’s be honest and recognize that children are being sucessfully raised worldwide by single parent families. Is this significantly different from raising children in same-sex households?

]]>
By: A. Nonny Mouse http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=230&cpage=1#comment-2728 A. Nonny Mouse Sat, 04 Feb 2006 19:43:31 +0000 http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=230#comment-2728 <i>While gay couples might have some trouble stacking up against straight couples for the rights to adopt, this is not a good reason to deny them the right to *try,* nor the right to marry.</i> Okay, so do you think there's anything the state could do to help them stack up equally? Give an extra point or two to a gay couple who legally promises to hire a differently gendered caretaker? Give an extra point or two for couples who have strong relationships with their own biological parents and are geographically close? While gay couples might have some trouble stacking up against straight couples for the rights to adopt, this is not a good reason to deny them the right to *try,* nor the right to marry.

Okay, so do you think there’s anything the state could do to help them stack up equally? Give an extra point or two to a gay couple who legally promises to hire a differently gendered caretaker? Give an extra point or two for couples who have strong relationships with their own biological parents and are geographically close?

]]>