5 ms·

That's not an argument against gay marriage, that's an argument against gay parenting (and to stop that, you need a national ban on turkey basters). Except it's

That's not an argument against gay marriage, that's an argument against gay parenting (and to stop that, you need a national ban on turkey basters). Except it's kind of a rubbish argument against gay parenting: That some state of affairs X in a family is best for children is not an argument that not-X should be forbidden. Children do better if they have rich parents, who can afford to buy them a wide variety of toys, give them a better education, buy them private tutors and books and plenty of other resources to give them a head-start in life. That doesn't mean that the rest of society shouldn't be allowed to raise children even though those children will be raised in a suboptimal fashion. If - and it is a big, complex, still-being-debated-by-social-scientists type of if - parenting by opposite-sex biological parents is the gold standard, that doesn't mean that people who still get to silver or bronze shouldn't also be able to parent.

haberman 13y ago
For the record, I am an unequivocal supporter of gay marriage, and I have always voted for it. The only thing that makes me at all uncomfortable about it is the possibility that it sets a norm where it is considered prejudiced and discriminatory to even ask the question of whether same-sex couples are the best for children. For example, it is pretty well accepted that having two parents is better for children than just one (all else being equal; abusive two-parent relationships are obviously worse). No one would argue that single parenting should be illegal. But it's not taboo to say that having two parents is probably better for kids than having just one. (Though of course many people have superstar single parents and turn out great.) Likewise I would never argue that gay parenting should be illegal. I just don't want to see it become an ostracizable offense to ask the question, without agenda, of whether same-sex parent situations are the best for kids.
- hkphooey 13y ago
  Yep, political correctness is stifling open debate. For some strange reason, nobody wants to discuss polygamous marriages, and whether they should be legal or not. It would be the height of hypocrisy to support gay marriage but not allow multiple consenting adults to form a similar union. Yet to even raise the issue invites ridicule. Another thing, I've often heard gay people use the derogatory term "breeders" to slur heterosexual couples with children. Why is this ok? Why doesn't anyone stand up and say this is wrong?
  - haberman 13y ago
    > For some strange reason, nobody wants to discuss polygamous marriages, and whether they should be legal or not. To me this is not hypocritical, because I do not see a contingent of people saying "we are living in healthy polygamous de facto marriages and wish to have the state recognize them." I don't think you can reason about this in a logical vacuum, it's about observing what actually happens in reality. > Another thing, I've often heard gay people use the derogatory term "breeders" to slur heterosexual couples with children. I've only ever heard this term used in fun. Any term used in a genuinely derogatory way is not ok by me.
    - hkphooey 13y ago
      > I do not see a contingent of people saying "we are living in healthy polygamous de facto marriages and wish to have the state recognize them." So the minority should not have any civil rights? In the US there are currently two different TV shows both featuring a man and his five "wives" and all their kids, and they all seem well adjusted and happy. Yet the law does not allow the man to be married to all of them. One of them has been fighting this stuff in court in Utah. Why do people support gay marriage but not polygamous marriage? Why aren't there activists on street corners handing out leaflets and asking for donations to help minorities in Utah? There is obviously some kind of double standard going on here and I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it is simply human nature at work. Gay people who want to get married only care about their own situation and are simply not interested in polygamous marriages. So it is somewhat hypocritical to expect the majority, who are not gay, to care about gay marriage when the debate is not truly about civil rights, because if it were, the campaign would also be fighting for the rights of polygamous families. I'd like to see the discussion take place and not be dismissed out-of-hand.
      - haberman 13y ago
        > So the minority should not have any civil rights? I said nothing of the sort. Maybe the reason you are not seeing the discussion you want is because you put people on the defensive by misinterpreting their words.

haberman 13y ago

For the record, I am an unequivocal supporter of gay marriage, and I have always voted for it. The only thing that makes me at all uncomfortable about it is the possibility that it sets a norm where it is considered prejudiced and discriminatory to even ask the question of whether same-sex couples are the best for children. For example, it is pretty well accepted that having two parents is better for children than just one (all else being equal; abusive two-parent relationships are obviously worse). No one would argue that single parenting should be illegal. But it's not taboo to say that having two parents is probably better for kids than having just one. (Though of course many people have superstar single parents and turn out great.) Likewise I would never argue that gay parenting should be illegal. I just don't want to see it become an ostracizable offense to ask the question, without agenda, of whether same-sex parent situations are the best for kids.

hkphooey 13y ago
Yep, political correctness is stifling open debate. For some strange reason, nobody wants to discuss polygamous marriages, and whether they should be legal or not. It would be the height of hypocrisy to support gay marriage but not allow multiple consenting adults to form a similar union. Yet to even raise the issue invites ridicule. Another thing, I've often heard gay people use the derogatory term "breeders" to slur heterosexual couples with children. Why is this ok? Why doesn't anyone stand up and say this is wrong?
- haberman 13y ago
  > For some strange reason, nobody wants to discuss polygamous marriages, and whether they should be legal or not. To me this is not hypocritical, because I do not see a contingent of people saying "we are living in healthy polygamous de facto marriages and wish to have the state recognize them." I don't think you can reason about this in a logical vacuum, it's about observing what actually happens in reality. > Another thing, I've often heard gay people use the derogatory term "breeders" to slur heterosexual couples with children. I've only ever heard this term used in fun. Any term used in a genuinely derogatory way is not ok by me.
  - hkphooey 13y ago
    > I do not see a contingent of people saying "we are living in healthy polygamous de facto marriages and wish to have the state recognize them." So the minority should not have any civil rights? In the US there are currently two different TV shows both featuring a man and his five "wives" and all their kids, and they all seem well adjusted and happy. Yet the law does not allow the man to be married to all of them. One of them has been fighting this stuff in court in Utah. Why do people support gay marriage but not polygamous marriage? Why aren't there activists on street corners handing out leaflets and asking for donations to help minorities in Utah? There is obviously some kind of double standard going on here and I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it is simply human nature at work. Gay people who want to get married only care about their own situation and are simply not interested in polygamous marriages. So it is somewhat hypocritical to expect the majority, who are not gay, to care about gay marriage when the debate is not truly about civil rights, because if it were, the campaign would also be fighting for the rights of polygamous families. I'd like to see the discussion take place and not be dismissed out-of-hand.
    - haberman 13y ago
      > So the minority should not have any civil rights? I said nothing of the sort. Maybe the reason you are not seeing the discussion you want is because you put people on the defensive by misinterpreting their words.