Same Sex Union Effect on Children?

Effects are environmental, mainly from bigoted morons like several people who've posted in this thread.
Legally, this and all other legal debates about same-sex marriage are moot. In 1967, in one of the concurring opinions to Loving v. State of Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled , that every US person had a right to marry someone (as long as consent is able to be legally obtained and obviously not in cases of bigamy) and is due all the legal rights and protections of marriage. The right is not given in the constitution but is implied as a natural right (legally defined as fundamental rights granted by God/nature, not society) and is covered under the Right to the Pursuit of Happiness.
Based on that definition and the natural rights guaranteed as the foundation of this country, denying someone the right to marry is morally equivalent to murder, slavery, and wrongful imprisonment.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Effects are environmental, mainly from bigoted morons like several people who've posted in this thread.
Legally, this and all other legal debates about same-sex marriage are moot. In 1967, in one of the concurring opinions to Loving v. State of Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled , that every US person had a right to marry someone (as long as consent is able to be legally obtained and obviously not in cases of bigamy) and is due all the legal rights and protections of marriage. The right is not given in the constitution but is implied as a natural right (legally defined as fundamental rights granted by God/nature, not society) and is covered under the Right to the Pursuit of Happiness.
Based on that definition and the natural rights guaranteed as the foundation of this country, denying someone the right to marry is morally equivalent to murder, slavery, and wrongful imprisonment.

You are totally missing the point. It's not about whether gay people can or should be able to marry, it's about the possible effects such a union might have on any children raised in such an environment. I do not know enough to give a difinitive answer here but I can speculate. Humans have been raised in family groups throughout history almost exclusively involving a male and a female parent. This is the same across all ethnicities and cultures. The modern politically correct idea that homosexuals can as well is a VERY recent idea and in MY OPINION one that does not fit a healthy upbringing for a child. Call me a bigot if you will and if being opposed to gays raising children makes one a bigot then I guess I am. Like I said, I'm very glad to Growing up is hard enough without the constant torment and ridicule oe would have to endure with gay parents. It's about what's best for the child, not someone's "right".

Double post

So basically what your saying is homophobia is the fault of gay people, not society?

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
You are totally missing the point. It's not about whether gay people can or should be able to marry, it's about the possible effects such a union might have on any children raised in such an environment. I do not know enough to give a difinitive answer here but I can speculate. Humans have been raised in family groups throughout history almost exclusively involving a male and a female parent. This is the same across all ethnicities and cultures. The modern politically correct idea that homosexuals can as well is a VERY recent idea and in MY OPINION one that does not fit a healthy upbringing for a child. Call me a bigot if you will and if being opposed to gays raising children makes one a bigot then I guess I am. Like I said, I'm very glad to Growing up is hard enough without the constant torment and ridicule oe would have to endure with gay parents. It's about what's best for the child, not someone's "right".

studies show that children reared by same sex couples show no apparent developmental, social or other issues when compared to those reared by mixed gender couples, and both show a huge improvement over single parent homes. You are, however, correct to say this is a relatively recent phenomenon, so all the data are not yet in.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Would anyone here want 2 fathers or 2 mothers? I for one am glad I had one of each.

why?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Effects are environmental, mainly from bigoted morons like several people who've posted in this thread.
Legally, this and all other legal debates about same-sex marriage are moot. In 1967, in one of the concurring opinions to Loving v. State of Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled , that every US person had a right to marry someone (as long as consent is able to be legally obtained and obviously not in cases of bigamy) and is due all the legal rights and protections of marriage. The right is not given in the constitution but is implied as a natural right (legally defined as fundamental rights granted by God/nature, not society) and is covered under the Right to the Pursuit of Happiness.
Based on that definition and the natural rights guaranteed as the foundation of this country, denying someone the right to marry is morally equivalent to murder, slavery, and wrongful imprisonment.

I was with you until that very last sentence, man.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was with you until that very last sentence, man.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Not counting black marriages as legal was an issue as deep as slavery itself. I think it's the same case here.

I agree that it is unfair/unjust.

But, I'd much rather NOT be married to my sweety pie than to have her murdered...which is why I don't follow his very last sentence.

His point was that based on the principal of "natural rights", it's an unforgivable act to deprive anyone of any natural right... be it the right to live or the right to marry.

Originally posted by King Kandy
His point was that based on the principal of "natural rights", it's an unforgivable act to deprive anyone of any natural right... be it the right to live or the right to marry.

I agree there, but the last sentence takes it too far, imo.

Murder /= unable to marry.

Not even close.

Sure, they both can be put under the loss of natural rights, but to equate the two is silly.

It was the basis of John Locke's philosophy which was instrumental in the creation of the constitution. I think you're really nitpicking here.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I think you're really nitpicking here.

No, not at all.

It's very simple.

Which would you prefer?

Eating dinner, watching tv and movie, playing video games, making love, pillow talk, vacations, telling each other ideas, getting joint accounts, raising children together, making food together, have a water gun fight in the house, just making out, helping him or her through a tough time and growing closer because of it, snuggling on a cold winter night, etc....but not getting to be married which includes none of the rights that are "marriage only" exclusive.

OR

None of the above because your lover was murdered.

I'm just having a REALLY time figuring out why that is being nitpicky.

In fact, equating the two is silly, like I said before. Just plain ol' silly.

Overly dramatic comes to mind. "I'd rather be DEAD than married because it's the SAME DAMN DEPRIVATION! HARUMPH!" That's just silly.

I don't think you never got my point...I just think that you think Jello's point was a valid equation. At this point, I don't think either of us will convince the other. Not all "natural rights" were "created" equal. Agreed?

On a side note here for those who are interested, the Referendum did in fact eventually pass with a 51%/49% majority.

Originally posted by Autokrat
On a side note here for those who are interested, the Referendum did in fact eventually pass with a 51%/49% majority.

Majoritarianism ❌

There's no set rules in any case. A father can be a drunk rapist in a straight home as well as a *** home.

I like to think that the mother and father balance each other out. My mom, for instance, was more of a strict, clean the house type of broad, more prone to manipulation and Pathos. My dad would often tell her when to get the balls to do something ballsy.

My father was more of a easy going fun guy who'd smack you when you ****ed up, but my mom kept this in check.

Yeah, but surely you can have two fathers or mothers with equally dynamic personalities.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yeah, but surely you can have two fathers or mothers with equally dynamic personalities.

Originally posted by One Free Man
There's no set rules in any case.

Originally posted by inimalist

why?

please........

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
please........

aside from rampant bigotry, why would you care if you had a loving set of homosexual parents over a loving set of heterosexual parents?

make me look foolish if it is so obvious

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, not at all.

It's very simple.

Which would you prefer?

Eating dinner, watching tv and movie, playing video games, making love, pillow talk, vacations, telling each other ideas, getting joint accounts, raising children together, making food together, have a water gun fight in the house, just making out, helping him or her through a tough time and growing closer because of it, snuggling on a cold winter night, etc....but not getting to be married which includes none of the rights that are "marriage only" exclusive.

OR

None of the above because your lover was murdered.

I'm just having a REALLY time figuring out why that is being nitpicky.

In fact, equating the two is silly, like I said before. Just plain ol' silly.

Overly dramatic comes to mind. "I'd rather be DEAD than married because it's the SAME DAMN DEPRIVATION! HARUMPH!" That's just silly.

I don't think you never got my point...I just think that you think Jello's point was a valid equation. At this point, I don't think either of us will convince the other. Not all "natural rights" were "created" equal. Agreed?

They are equal in the sense that as natural rights you are guaranteed those and unless you have denied those rights to others, they cannot be taken away by any government. Philosophically, it also means you have the right to defend them by any means necessary, hence why there are legal exemptions for certain acts of civil disobedience, justifiable assault and justifiable homicide. This country was founded in revolution justified by those principles. Sure, faith based organizations can refuse to marry people but the state cannot refuse to issue licenses.
As far as I know there has never been a legal or philosophical way to place one right above another, only that they are fundamental and that your force in defending those rights must be proportional. You shouldn't assault or shoot a county official for denying you a marriage license or use force against a state for refusing to recognize it. But you can always sue, press charges, and generally make a nuisance of yourself.

As for the inevitable pedophile question, it statistically doesn't hold water. Pedophelia, pederasty, and ebophelia are psychologically different than homosexuality. Statistically, most pedophiles are straight males.