Again give credit to whom you copied �the benefits of marriage" from. But after three times it very evident you won't so I'll do it for you, the "evidence" he provided was researched by Bridget Maher. Also the statistics are not relevant in deciding whether a homosexual-union is beneficial because the statistics were derived from a comparison between single parent homes and nuclear family homes. To use them as evidence against a same-sex union is drastically taking the statistics out of context, which Bridget Maher did when she wrote the article "family values." Not to mention it has historical errors, world perspective errors and the simple fact that this article does not take into account the presence of anomalies, and the difference between individuals. Also it is very important to note to be very skeptical of sociologists claims, in particular because this is a scientific field that is very strongly culturally-bound.
quote: It's irrelvent how the homosexuals feel because the instution of marriage does not rest on the population, it is an institution that rests with the society, so that it may be given out to those friendships that benefit the society's best interests
Doesn't rest on the population, but rests with society. Hmmmm what is society made up of? Oh could be the population?
[This message was edited by djmagnusa on January 23, 2004 at 01:55 AM.]
'I just want to know what that had to do with anything. All it shows is that you are a moron. *shrugs*'
It shows though the position of one of our founders that the constituiton never gave out the freedom to make any freindship into marriage.
'Homosexuals do not need a marriage to be bound to each other. They just want the right to have a legal union so that they can have the same [financial] benefits as heterosexuals. Religion has nothing to do with this, unless you are bent on pushing your religion onto others.'
It's irrelvent how the homosexuals feel because the instution of marriage does not rest on the population, it is an institution that rests with the society, so that it may be given out to those friendships that benefit the society's best interests
'Second, our society does not need to promote heterosexual marriage'
Yes it and here is why:
How Marriage Benefits Children
· Children living with married parents are much safer than children living with single parents, because they are less likely to be aborted and less likely to be abused or neglected.[1]
· Compared to children in single-parent families, children raised in married-parent homes have better emotional and physical health[2] and engage in fewer risky behaviors, such as premarital sex, substance abuse, delinquency, and suicide.[3]
· Children with married parents do better academically and fare better economically.[4]
· Children raised in intact homes are less likely to cohabit and more likely to view marriage positively and maintain life-long marriages.[5]
How Marriage Benefits Adults
· Married people have better emotional and physical health and live longer than do unmarried people.[6]
· Married couples have greater incomes than do single adults, and the longer they stay married, the more wealth they accumulate.[7]
· Married couples enjoy greater sexual satisfaction than do unmarried people.[8]
· Married women are safer than unmarried women. Never-married, cohabiting, separated, and divorced women experience higher rates of domestic violence than do married women.[9]
How Marriage Benefits Society
· Marriage helps ensure that human life is protected and cherished, since married women are less likely to abort their children than are unmarried women.[10]
· Marriage makes homes safer places to live, because it curbs social problems such as domestic violence and child abuse.[11]
· Communities with more married-parent families are safer and more attractive places to live, because they are less likely to have substance abuse and crime among young people. [12]
· Marriage is the best antidote to poverty and welfare dependency.[13]
· Married people are more likely to be healthy, productive, and engaged citizens, benefiting businesses and, ultimately, the economy.[14]
END NOTES 1. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, "Trends in Abortion in the United States, 1973-2000," January 2003 and Andrea J. Sedlak and Dinae D. Broadhurst, The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996, xviii, 5-19. 2. Kelly J. Kelleher, et al., "Increasing Identification of Psychosocial Problems:1979-1996," Pediatrics 105 (June 2000): 1313-1321 and Deborah A. Dawson, "Family Structure and Children's Health and Well-Being: Data from the 1988 National Health Interview Survey on Child Health," Journal of Marriage and the Family 53 (August 1991): 573-584. 3. John S. Santelli et al., "The Association of Sexual Behaviors with Socioeconomic Status, Family Structure, and Race/Ethnicity Among U.S. Adolescents," American Journal of Public Health 90 (October 2000): 1582-1588; John P. Hoffman and Robert A. Johnson, "A National Portrait of Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use," Journal of Marriage and the Family 60 (August 1998): 633-645; Patrick J. Darby et al., "Analysis of 112 Juveniles Who Committed Homicide: Characteristics and a Closer Look at Family Abuse," Journal of Family Violence 13 (1998):365-374; Judith Rubenstein et al., "Suicidal Behavior in Adolescents: Stress and Protection in Different Family Contexts," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 68 (1998): 274-284. 4. Elizabeth Thomson et al., "Family Structure and Child Well-Being: Economic Resources vs. Parental Behaviors," Social Forces 73 (September 1994): 221-242. 5. Paul R. Amato and Danelle D. DeBoer, "The Transmission of Marital Instability Across Generations: Relationship Skills or Commitment to Marriage?" Journal of Marriage and Family 63 (November 2001): 1038-1051; Alfred DeMaris and K. Vaninadha Rao, "Premarital Cohabitation and Subsequent Marital Stability in the United States: A Reassessment," Journal of Marriage and the Family 54 (February 1992): 178-190; Katherine Trent and Scott J. South "Sociodemographic Status, Parental Background, Childhood Family Structure, and Attitudes Toward Family Formation," Journal of Marriage and the Family 54 (May 1992): 427-439. 6. Nadine F. Marks and James D. Lambert, "Marital Status Continuity and Change Among Young and Midlife Adults," Journal of Family Issues 19 (November 1998): 652-686 and Catherine E. Ross et al., "The Impact of the Family on Health: The Decade in Review," Journal of Marriage and the Family 52 (November 1990): 1059-1078. 7. U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2001, Table No. 666 and Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially (New York: Doubleday, 2000) 97-123. 8. Edward O. Laumann et al., The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1994) p.364. 9. Sonia Miner Salari and Bret M. Baldwin, "Verbal, Physical, and Injurious Aggression Among Intimate Couples Over Time," Journal of Family Issues 23 (May 2002): 523-550 and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Intimate Partner Violence, National Crime Victimization Survey, May 2000, 4-5, 11. 10. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, "Trends in Abortion in the United States, 1973-2000." 11. Sonia Miner Salari and Bret M. Baldwin, "Verbal, Physical, and Injurious Aggression Among Intimate Couples Over Time" and Andrea J. Sedlak and Dinae D. Broadhurst, The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect. 12. Terrence P. Thornberry et al., "Family Disruption and Delinquency," Juvenile Justice Bulletin, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, September 1999. 13. U.S. Census Bureau, "Historical Poverty Tables," Table 4 and June O'Neill and M. Anne Hill, "Gaining Ground? Measuring the Impact of Welfare Reform on Welfare and Work," The Manhattan Institute, Civic Report 17. 14. Corey L.M. Keyes, "The Mental Health Continuum: From Languishing to Flourishing in Life," Journal of Health and Social Behavior 43 (2002): 207-222 as cited in The Family in America New Research, October 2002.
'it needs to promote good parenting. There are so many kids now (with heterosexual parents) who are the most disrespectful, ****ty (for lack of a better word to describe what I am thinking), and violent kids I have ever seen.'
Obviously society we depends on the parrents to raise our well, however, if they are not willing to put thier kids up for adoption, there is nothing we can do, with the exception of allow school spankings.
quote:Oh yeah and Tohmas Jefferson's punishment for homosexual acts (castration) is a clear testament to his belife that the government should accept homosexuality with open arms </sacrasm>
I just want to know what that had to do with anything. All it shows is that you are a moron. *shrugs*
quote:Also, marriage is not about indivutal (or couple) rights, it is an instititution, and as an institution it is about safegaurding certian interest that our society depends on, such as the sability of the instititution of family in the proper care of children in enforcing the parrental obligations between a man and a wife towards the children.
Homosexuals do not need a marriage to be bound to each other. They just want the right to have a legal union so that they can have the same [financial] benefits as heterosexuals. Religion has nothing to do with this, unless you are bent on pushing your religion onto others.
quote:Yeah, but our society needs to promote marital unions via the benifits implied in marriage because married parrents benifit the child.
First off, it is "benefit" not "benifit." Second, our society does not need to promote heterosexual marriage; it needs to promote good parenting. There are so many kids now (with heterosexual parents) who are the most disrespectful, ****ty (for lack of a better word to describe what I am thinking), and violent kids I have ever seen. We need an improvement in parenting, not more anti-homosexual sentiment.
You are being misleading with your sources. The sources were meant to support an article written by Bridget Maher, not your little rhetoric filled speech. In this case it seems like you are the one who is trying to be misleading and playing the rhetoric game. You can site all the sources you want but it is important to keep the sources in the CONTEXT they were written.
'Granting homosexuals the right to have the same rights as heterosexual married couples would not be promoting homosexuality; it would be enforcing equality, which is granted in the Constitution. Nowhere does it state that'
Oh yeah and Tohmas Jefferson's punishment for homosexual acts (castration) is a clear testament to his belife that the government should accept homosexuality with open arms </sacrasm>
'people of the same gender cannot have the same rights as couples of different genders.'
Also, marriage is not about indivutal (or couple) rights, it is an instititution, and as an institution it is about safegaurding certian interest that our society depends on, such as the sability of the instititution of family in the proper care of children in enforcing the parrental obligations between a man and a wife towards the children.
---
'FYI - you do not need to be married to reproduce. (I am assuming you did not know that, due to your: "I merely said that society provides this benifit so that we will be able to reprdounce," statement.)'
Yeah, but our society needs to promote marital unions via the benifits implied in marriage because married parrents benifit the child.
(SOURCES: 2. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, "Trends in Abortion in the United States, 1973-2000," January 2003 and Andrea J. Sedlak and Dinae D. Broadhurst, The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996, xviii, 5-19. 3. Kelly J. Kelleher, et al., "Increasing Identification of Psychosocial Problems:1979-1996," Pediatrics 105 (June 2000): 1313-1321. 4. Patrick J. Darby et al., "Analysis of 112 Juveniles Who Committed Homicide:Characteristics and a Closer Look at Family Abuse," Journal of Family Violence 13 (1998): 365-374. 5. John S. Santelli et al., "The Association of Sexual Behaviors with Socioeconomic Status, Family Structure, and Race/Ethnicity Among U.S. Adolescents," American Journal of Public Health 90 (October 2000): 1582-1588 and Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), 1-2. 6. Elizabeth Thomson et al., "Family Structure and Child Well-Being: Economic Resources vs. Parental Behaviors," Social Forces 73 (September 1994): 221-242. )
"Common sense and an overwhelming amount of social science data show that children raised by their biological married parents have the best chance of becoming happy, healthy, responsible, morally-upright citizens. Children with married parents are much safer than children living in single-parent homes. They are less likely to be aborted and less likely to be abused or neglected. [2] Children in intact families also have better emotional health[3] and engage in fewer risky behaviors, including substance abuse and delinquency.[4] Premarital sex and having children out of wedlock are also less common among children in intact families.[5] Moreover, children with married parents fare better economically and experience greater educational success than do those with unmarried parents.[6]"
quote:the western is so messed up, I kind of wish that that would happen because then all there would be no new babies, and civilized society could resume whenever they all die off.
I can picture your perfect idea of a "civilized society." I hope all the humans die off before then. ^__^
quote:Why should our government promote homosexuality? What does our government owe homosexuality?
Like gem said before, and I said on another thread, the government is not promoting anything to do with sexual orientation. It is promoting the equal rights granted to every citizen because of the Constitution. Don't like it? Then change the Constitution, shut up, or leave.
quote:Also, China does have homosexuals, they put them in mental hospitals though. Also, China is going to shink to 1/10 it's population most likely in the next generation, as there are one female child to every ten male children.
China's population is not dwindling; they are overpopulated. A decrease in population would be a good thing.
Also, China has a higher male to female ratio because all of the heterosexual parents are killing off their female children because girls are considered second class citizens. They would probably keep one girl if there was not the one child per family law right now.
Get your facts straight before you try to bash something.
quote:First of all, i never said that people marry to reprouce. I merely said that society provides this benifit so that we will be able to reprdounce, and have an increase in population to the point that it wont decrease (like Germany)
Well, from the way you are clinging to the "only heterosexuals can reproduce, therefore only heterosexuals should be able to get married" idea makes it seem like you think that people only marry to reproduce. A bit of bad wording on your part if you think otherwise.
FYI - you do not need to be married to reproduce. (I am assuming you did not know that, due to your: "I merely said that society provides this benifit so that we will be able to reprdounce," statement.)
"the straight one word to your question is YES.. its about time we straight humans reliaze that not everyone feels like us and we have to learn to be okay with certain things. imagine a world with only homosexuals and straight people were in minority then wouldn't we fight for our rights ??"
the western is so messed up, I kind of wish that that would happen because then all there would be no new babies, and civilized society could resume whenever they all die off.
Marriage is not an institution! It's a bunch of ****ing papers! GAYS WOULDN'T BE RUINING ANYTHING GOOD! And don't give me that "It's the idea of marriage" bull****, because the idea is LOVE not GENDER. Anyone says otherwise, just assume my response would be "**** YOU!" I am just so sick and god damned tired of bigots whining about "gays on the bus".
the straight one word to your question is YES.. its about time we straight humans reliaze that not everyone feels like us and we have to learn to be okay with certain things. imagine a world with only homosexuals and straight people were in minority then wouldn't we fight for our rights ??
Of course they should be able to marry if they want to! The United States needs to legally recognize gay couples. Why shouldn't they? Some religions say that it "destroys the sanctity of marriage", ok, the churches don't have to marry gay couples but the City Halls should. Whatever happened to seperation of church and state? Let them marry, what injustice does it do to you?
Homosexuals being allowed to marry is a good thing. There are certain financial resons for getting married. The don't need encouragement to be gay. Population going down would be a good thing. Population reduction in Europe is minor and a good thing and mainly b/c women no longer have nothing to do except have kids as well as a decrease in agricultural societies.
quote: Why should our government promote homosexuality? What does our government owe homosexuality?
The government doesn't promote any type of sexuality. Granting homosexuals the right to have the same rights as heterosexual married couples would not be promoting homosexuality; it would be enforcing equality, which is granted in the Constitution. Nowhere does it state that people of the same gender cannot have the same rights as couples of different genders.
quote: Germany's population is radically dimishing. The population is not growing enough to the point that it is starting to decrease. They have civil unions. Coninsidence? I don't think so.
"While Germany's death rate exceeds its birth rate, its population continues to grow because of net migration. Pyramids in which the proportions of the population are fairly evenly distributed among all age groups are representative of many highly industrialized societies. Germany's old population reflects an extended period of low birth and death rates. While fewer children have been born, most of those born survive through to old age." Here
Germany's population decrease has nothing to do with homosexuality or marriage.
quote: First of all, i never said that people marry to reprouce. I merely said that society provides this benifit so that we will be able to reprdounce, and have an increase in population to the point that it wont decrease (like Germany)
You said, "our society depends on hetrosexual relationships to keep it going (ie growing)," thus inferring that people (heterosexuals) should be marrying to keep the population growing. The population cannot grow without procreation and reproduction, correct? Are you aware that approximately 7.7 percent of men and 7.5 of women have strong same-sex attractions, and only 2.8 percent of men and 1.4 of women consider themselves homosexuals? Therefore, heterosexuals consist of the majority of the population, so if those homosexual were to get married and not reproduce, the population would still thrive and even increase. Also, homosexual couples are more apt to adopt children who would otherwise live parentless.
quote: Also, China does have homosexuals, they put them in mental hospitals though. Also, China is going to shrink to 1/10 it's population most likely in the next generation, as there are one female child to every ten male children.
No, China puts religious fanatics in mental hospitals. China will not shrink anytime soon, though that's the goal of the communists. Measures are being taken in China now where woman are being forced to have abortions if the baby is female, parents are getting fined for having more than one child (explaining why there are more males than females), and mothers will even kill their babies as soon as they're born to avoid the repercussions of the government. Their population is extremely and dangerously high, hence why there needs to be MORE Chinese homosexuals.
" Homosexuals should have every right to have a legal binding to each other (if you don't choose to call it "marriage" because the word is sacred or whatever BS you all seem to think, then so be it). "
Why should our government promote homosexuality? What does our government owe homosexuality?
" And we all know that our population is radically diminishing to the point where people must only marry simply to endow the world with more progeny (i.e more offspring to complete the cycle of procreation). This is sarcasm. And it's "heterosexual," sweetie; just for future reference. "
Germany's population is radically dimishing. The population is not growing enough to the point that it is starting to decrease. They have civil unions. Coninsidence? I don't think so.
" Note: If people only married to reproduce, then the United States would have a larger population than China (thus supporting my theory that it would greatly benefit the world in its entirety if there were more Chinese homosexuals). "
First of all, i never said that people marry to reprouce. I merely said that society provides this benifit so that we will be able to reprdounce, and have an increase in population to the point that it wont decrease (like Germany)
Also, China does have homosexuals, they put them in mental hospitals though. Also, China is going to shink to 1/10 it's population most likely in the next generation, as there are one female child to every ten male children.
" 2nd Note: Marriage is not a privilege; it is a responsibility. "
To get married is a privlege, but I guess to live in a marriage is a responsibility
Homosexuals should have every right to have a legal binding to each other (if you don't choose to call it "marriage" because the word is sacred or whatever BS you all seem to think, then so be it).
quote:I honestly think that marriage should be a special privlege given to hetrosexual couples because our society depends on hetrosexual relationships to keep it going (ie growing).
And we all know that our population is radically diminishing to the point where people must only marry simply to endow the world with more progeny (i.e more offspring to complete the cycle of procreation). This is sarcasm. And it's "heterosexual," sweetie; just for future reference.
Note: If people only married to reproduce, then the United States would have a larger population than China (thus supporting my theory that it would greatly benefit the world in its entirety if there were more Chinese homosexuals).
2nd Note: Marriage is not a privilege; it is a responsibility.
Topics 
