Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against ...

Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?

There are 16102 comments on the news.yahoo.com story from Apr 27, 2009, titled Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?. In it, news.yahoo.com reports that:

The trouble they see is not just an America where general support for gay marriage will have driven a wedge between churches and the world, but between churches themselves.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at news.yahoo.com.

“THE JOURNEY OF A 1000 MILES”

Since: Aug 08

BEGINS WITH JUST ONE STEP:-)

#1009 Jan 26, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think these moms wished they had a father for their children? i have never met a single mom who didn't wish this.
30 years ago, I was a single parent.....and I never wished that I had someone else to help me raise my child.......but I do understand that a 2 parent household raising children is a little easier than a single parent household is.......but I wouldn't have settled for just anyone, especially not based on gender.......if fact before I cam to terms with my sexual orientation, I was engaged to be married to a man.......that man, as gentle as he was at times, lost his temper and slapped my child across the face so hard, he left his hand print.......when I finally got my 3 year old to calm down, I went out to talk to him......I grabbed the end of the couch so hard and I spoke in an extremely soft voice.......I don't him if he EVER laid a hand on my child like that again, I'd kill him.........shortly after that, he tried to take his life and our relationship was officially over!!!!

So, not always is mom and dad always a good environment!!!

Oh and yes, I was already in the process of coming to terms with my sexual orientation......and though he was overall a decent person......I already knew I wasn't IN love with him and would divorce him in less than 2 years of marriage and I value marriage!!!

“THE JOURNEY OF A 1000 MILES”

Since: Aug 08

BEGINS WITH JUST ONE STEP:-)

#1010 Jan 26, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
This may help but no one can replace the real father or mother.
Sure they can.......if a child is very young and either their biological mother or father dies and a step parent comes in.......the child may never know!!!!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#1011 Jan 26, 2013
"In summary, social science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents' concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people' are unfounded. Overall, the research indicates that the children of lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from the children of heterosexual parents in their development, adjustment, or overall well-being."

http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientati...

And two more that found they are just as good if not better:

"Overall, studies indicate that children raised with lesbian co-parents do just as well as children raised by heterosexual married couples. The children of lesbian co-parents may even have fewer behavioral problems and higher self-esteem." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35124737/ns/healt...

"Parenting by same-sex families is just as good -- if not slightly advantageous -- for children when compared to heterosexual families, a Justice Department study has concluded." http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story....
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#1012 Jan 26, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet, in many cases, the kids do just fine. Amazing.
I know these facts won't impress you much but for the others its well worth posting how important fathers are:
""Young men who grow up in homes without fathers are twice as likely to end up in jail as those who come from traditional two-parent families...those boys whose fathers were absent from the household had double the odds of being incarcerated -- even when other factors such as race, income, parent education and urban residence were held constant." (Cynthia Harper of the University of Pennsylvania and Sara S. McLanahan of Princeton University cited in "Father Absence and Youth Incarceration." Journal of Research on Adolescence 14 (September 2004): 369-397.)
Suicide. 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: What Can the Federal Government Do To Decrease Crime and Revitalize Communities?- see link below)
Behavioral Disorders. 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: What Can the Federal Government Do To Decrease Crime and Revitalize Communities?- see link below)
High School Dropouts. 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: What Can the Federal Government Do To Decrease Crime and Revitalize Communities?- see link below)
Educational Attainment. Kids living in single-parent homes or in step-families report lower educational expectations on the part of their parents, less parental monitoring of school work, and less overall social supervision than children from intact families.(N.M. Astore and S. McLanahan, American Sociological Review, No. 56 (1991)
Juvenile Detention Rates. 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: What Can the Federal Government Do To Decrease Crime and Revitalize Communities?- see link below)
Confused Identities. Boys who grow up in father-absent homes are more likely that those in father-present homes to have trouble establishing appropriate sex roles and gender identity.(P.L. Adams, J.R. Milner, and N.A. Schrepf, Fatherless Children, New York, Wiley Press, 1984).
Delinquency. Only 13 percent of juvenile delinquents come from families in which the biological mother and father are married to each other. By contract, 33 percent have parents who are either divorced or separated and 44 percent have parents who were never married.(Wisconsin Dept. of Health and Social Services, April 1994).
Criminal Activity. The likelihood that a young male will engage in criminal activity doubles if he is raised without a father and triples if he lives in a neighborhood with a high concentration of single-parent families. Source: A. Anne Hill, June O'Neill, Underclass Behaviors in the United States, CUNY, Baruch College. 1993"
http://fatherhood.about.com/od/fathersrights/...
I hope the rest of the gang here understands what this means.
BTW- the way the word father is used here means a man. This is to refute the nonsense gender roles are not important.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#1013 Jan 26, 2013
There is no justification for denial of equal treament to same sex parent families. It provides nothing to straight families, while harming gay ones.

Gill v OPM:
"But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate.

Similarly, Congress' asserted interest in defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage is not "grounded in sufficient factual context for this court to ascertain some relation" between it and the classification DOMA effects.

What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it "only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law." And this the Constitution does not permit. "For if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean" that the Constitution will not abide such "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."

Neither does the Constitution allow Congress to sustain DOMA by reference to the objective of defending traditional notions of morality. As the Supreme Court made abundantly clear in Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans, "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law..."
http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...

“THE JOURNEY OF A 1000 MILES”

Since: Aug 08

BEGINS WITH JUST ONE STEP:-)

#1014 Jan 26, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I know these facts won't impress you much but for the others its well worth posting how important fathers are:
http://fatherhood.about.com/od/fathersrights/...
Interesting.....percentages without knowing how they were arrived at are meaningless and not one part of your wonderful copy and paste job provides any methodology on how these percentages were obtained!!!

In other words the information is outdated, most of the information was almost 20 years ago.....and doesn't seem to indicate anything about gender, demographics or whether social economical factors played any part.

Try again!!!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#1015 Jan 26, 2013
While gay parents are just as capable as straight parents, having children or raising children has never been a requirement for marriage.

But trying to restrict this fundamental right based on an unrealistic belief about what the best family should look like, also fails to consider the fact convicted child abusers, rapists, and other violent criminals do not forfeit the fundamental right of marriage, even while serving time.(Turner)

Ironically, the gay law enforcement men and women who risk their lives protecting us from such criminals do not enjoy the same legal rights enjoyed by convicted violent felons serving time in prison.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#1016 Jan 26, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting.....percentages without knowing how they were arrived at are meaningless and not one part of your wonderful copy and paste job provides any methodology on how these percentages were obtained!!!
In other words the information is outdated, most of the information was almost 20 years ago.....and doesn't seem to indicate anything about gender, demographics or whether social economical factors played any part.
Try again!!!
Additionally, all of those were comparing single parent homes to intact two parent homes.

Others studies show is it not the gender of the parent, but the relationship between the parent and child that is the important variable. Even in two parent homes, fathers (and/or mothers) are abusive, causing more damage than in a single parent home where the relationship is a positive one.

But again, being a parent, good or bad, has never been a requirement for the fundamental right of marriage.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#1017 Jan 26, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I know these facts won't impress you much but for the others its well worth posting how important fathers are:
""Young men who grow up in homes without fathers are twice as likely to end up in jail as those who come from traditional two-parent families...those boys whose fathers were absent from the household had double the odds of being incarcerated -- even when other factors such as race, income, parent education and urban residence were held constant." (Cynthia Harper of the University of Pennsylvania and Sara S. McLanahan of Princeton University cited in "Father Absence and Youth Incarceration." Journal of Research on Adolescence 14 (September 2004): 369-397.)
Suicide. 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: What Can the Federal Government Do To Decrease Crime and Revitalize Communities?- see link below)
Behavioral Disorders. 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: What Can the Federal Government Do To Decrease Crime and Revitalize Communities?- see link below)
High School Dropouts. 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes....
The lack of a "Father" in the home is a subjective extrapolation being read into the data and not necessarily supported by the data. Again, what is significant is a ONE PARENT household. The fact that the majority of those households are female is incidental. It is the pressure to bear on ONE PARENT RAISING A CHILD, not the absence of a particular gender in that household. No one here would dispute the fact that it is much better to have a two parent home simply in terms of the availbility of parential authority in the home, the availablity of more income and the quality of life that ensues in issues such as the potential of being more able to choose to live in lower crime areas, better schools, better socila services, etc- a whole host of problems that are greatly reduced by the presence of TWO PARENTS. Would it be better if the original parents didn't divorce? Yes, when one considers the tendency estranged couples have of using their children as weapons, a child's sense of divided loyalties, the emotional threat a step-parent sometimes represents, for instance-yes, and in the case of both gay and straight couples with children from a prior marriages involved the situation can shared sometimes be complex, difficult and protracted in their resolution if it happens at all, and in this situation the problemsshared by gay and straight couples would be somewhat equal. The only true caliber of equivalence would be straight couples and gay couples who adopt infants- and most the data I've read shows that gay couples are actually more competent parents, the kids have an edge on emotional adjustsment and self-esteem because parenthood is a deliberate and well-thought out act and the potential parents are vetted, as oppose to a serendipitous straight pregnancy to a couple who might or might want a child or even have parenting skills.

“THE JOURNEY OF A 1000 MILES”

Since: Aug 08

BEGINS WITH JUST ONE STEP:-)

#1018 Jan 26, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Additionally, all of those were comparing single parent homes to intact two parent homes.
Others studies show is it not the gender of the parent, but the relationship between the parent and child that is the important variable. Even in two parent homes, fathers (and/or mothers) are abusive, causing more damage than in a single parent home where the relationship is a positive one.
But again, being a parent, good or bad, has never been a requirement for the fundamental right of marriage.
I know that, but what do you expect from fundies?
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#1019 Jan 26, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I know these facts won't impress you much but for the others its well worth posting how important fathers are:
""Young men who grow up in homes without fathers are twice as likely to end up in jail as those who come from traditional two-parent families...those boys whose fathers were absent from the household had double the odds of being incarcerated -- even when other factors such as race, income, parent education and urban residence were held constant." (Cynthia Harper of the University of Pennsylvania and Sara S. McLanahan of Princeton University cited in "Father Absence and Youth Incarceration." Journal of Research on Adolescence 14 (September 2004): 369-397.)
Suicide. 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: What Can the Federal Government Do To Decrease Crime and Revitalize Communities?- see link below)
Behavioral Disorders. 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: What Can the Federal Government Do To Decrease Crime and Revitalize Communities?- see link below)
High School Dropouts. 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: What Can the Federal Government Do To Decrease Crime and Revitalize Communities?- see link below)
Educational Attainment. Kids living in single-parent homes or in step-families report lower educational expectations on the part of their parents, less parental monitoring of school work, and less overall social supervision than children from intact families.(N.M. Astore and S. McLanahan, American Sociological Review, No. 56 (1991)
Juvenile Detention Rates. 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: What Can the Federal Government Do To Decrease Crime and Revitalize Communities?- see link below)
Confused Identities. Boys who grow up in father-absent homes are more likely that those in father-present homes to have trouble establishing appropriate sex roles and gender identity.(P.L. Adams, J.R. Milner, and N.A. Schrepf, Fatherless Children, New York, Wiley Press, 1984).
Delinquency. Only 13 percent of juvenile delinquents come from families in which the biological mother and father are married to each other. By contract, 33 percent have parents who are either divorced or separated and 44 percent have parents who were never married.(Wisconsin Dept. of Health and Social Services, April 1994).
Criminal Activity. The likelihood that a young male will engage in criminal activity doubles if he is raised without a father and triples if he lives in a neighborhood with a high concentration of single-parent families. Source: A. Anne Hill, June O'Neill, Underclass Behaviors in the United States, CUNY, Baruch College. 1993"
http://fatherhood.about.com/od/fathersrights/...
I hope the rest of the gang here understands what this means.
BTW- the way the word father is used here means a man. This is to refute the nonsense gender roles are not important.
I agree with you that children of single parents should be removed by the state and placed with married couples because of the harm single parenthood does to the children, but single parenthood has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#1020 Jan 26, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
What?? I'm clueless how the bodies of men and women are designed to sexually complement each other? Get serious. The norm is for sex is between a man and a woman and not between a same sex couple. The only natural way to procreate is with a male and female. That is what they are designed for.
It is unnatural for a 2 same sex people. There is natural way for this.
So, heterosexual couples who have anal sex should not be allowed to marry. Thanks for clearing that up. Now, should cunnilingus also disqualify heterosexual couples from getting married?

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#1021 Jan 26, 2013
RubyTheDyke wrote:
<quoted text>
I just voted for one in November
ta-da! So did I (surprise!)

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#1022 Jan 26, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lolol.....you accuse me of hate?...lolol....you who have TRIED to write the most vicious, hateful, spiteful, mean, angry, dark, filthy, cussing derogatory words for Mormons, Mormon parents, the people that make up the Mormon church, people disagreeing about same sex marriage and or homosexuality, and you accuse me of hate? lolol..... yeah what ever you kind, caring, loving person....so fricking funny....just to much....thank you for the laughter...really, thank you :)
For someone who isn't Mormon, why are you so worried about it? And what is also so funny to me, is how you've given the LDS church a free pass for being worst. That doesn't bother you in the least, but you so agonize over the feelings of the Mormons and the Mormon church. A church built upon hatred, discrimination, sexual perversions, and the fighting of and rejection of traditional marriage.

Hypocrite.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#1023 Jan 26, 2013
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Just wanted to say, fk you. Just wanted to say how much I don't care. Just want to say, Fk youuuu. This is from the bottom of my heart. Fk You. LMFAO
Reported.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1024 Jan 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with you that children of single parents should be removed by the state and placed with married couples because of the harm single parenthood does to the children, but single parenthood has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
Are you kidding me?

Many single people are great, loving parents.
Fitz

Roseville, MI

#1025 Jan 26, 2013
RubyTheDyke wrote:
<quoted text>
The lack of a "Father" in the home is a subjective extrapolation being read into the data and not necessarily supported by the data. Again, what is significant is a ONE PARENT household. The fact that the majority of those households are female is incidental. It is the pressure to bear on ONE PARENT RAISING A CHILD, not the absence of a particular gender in that household. No one here would dispute the fact that it is much better to have a two parent home simply in terms of the availbility of parential authority in the home, the availablity of more income and the quality of life that ensues in issues such as the potential of being more able to choose to live in lower crime areas, better schools, better socila services, etc- a whole host of problems that are greatly reduced by the presence of TWO PARENTS. Would it be better if the original parents didn't divorce? Yes, when one considers the tendency estranged couples have of using their children as weapons, a child's sense of divided loyalties, the emotional threat a step-parent sometimes represents, for instance-yes, and in the case of both gay and straight couples with children from a prior marriages involved the situation can shared sometimes be complex, difficult and protracted in their resolution if it happens at all, and in this situation the problemsshared by gay and straight couples would be somewhat equal. The only true caliber of equivalence would be straight couples and gay couples who adopt infants- and most the data I've read shows that gay couples are actually more competent parents, the kids have an edge on emotional adjustsment and self-esteem because parenthood is a deliberate and well-thought out act and the potential parents are vetted, as oppose to a serendipitous straight pregnancy to a couple who might or might want a child or even have parenting skills.
#1. By that logic polyamorist parenting is better than your arbitrary "two-person" model because it has multiple care givers.

#2. The cultural left has not come out against single parent households or done anything to promote marriage despite the bottoming out of marriage amoung the under-class to the tune of 70% illigitamacy rates. Indeed thye champion ALL familhy forms to be inherintly equal and wont go on record as being against the massive rise in single parent households. So the idea that Rubies momentary concension to the oimportance of a new and arbitrary "two-person" standard is clearly a strategic poltical move in support of same-sex "marriage" and not a principled stand for "two person" households as a new standard.

#3. The raft of social science that has determined and generated the consensus was not done on genderless "two person" households. On the contrary the consensus that has been generated amoung social scientists is that the natural married opposite sex hpouse hold is superior than every other adequetly studied household including single parents, adopted parents,step-families,divorced families, blended families and the like. What you have done above is simple conjecture on your part and has zero support in the social scientific literature.

#3.
Fitz

Roseville, MI

#1026 Jan 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with you that children of single parents should be removed by the state and placed with married couples because of the harm single parenthood does to the children, but single parenthood has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
I bet you would. But Jeff never said this. Because resonable people understand that the rights of both parent & child rightfully preclude the state from taking children away from their true parents. Just as it establishes the rights of parents to know and be known by their children and the children a right to know and be known by their true parents.

Only totalitarians support the removal of children fro their true parents becuase they see children as extensions of adult validation and not people in their own right... abortion and same-sex "marriage" and gay adoption are symptoms of this diseased mindset.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#1027 Jan 26, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
#1. By that logic polyamorist parenting is better than your arbitrary "two-person" model because it has multiple care givers.
#2. The cultural left has not come out against single parent households or done anything to promote marriage despite the bottoming out of marriage amoung the under-class to the tune of 70% illigitamacy rates. Indeed thye champion ALL familhy forms to be inherintly equal and wont go on record as being against the massive rise in single parent households. So the idea that Rubies momentary concension to the oimportance of a new and arbitrary "two-person" standard is clearly a strategic poltical move in support of same-sex "marriage" and not a principled stand for "two person" households as a new standard.
#3. The raft of social science that has determined and generated the consensus was not done on genderless "two person" households. On the contrary the consensus that has been generated amoung social scientists is that the natural married opposite sex hpouse hold is superior than every other adequetly studied household including single parents, adopted parents,step-families,divorced families, blended families and the like. What you have done above is simple conjecture on your part and has zero support in the social scientific literature.
#3.
I. Perhaps-I've never advocated against poyamorous relationships.
2. The "cultural left" has always advocated economic and social policies designed to enhance and aid families, especially with the idea of enhancing the quality of life for the poorest among us-which by the way includes reproductive power over when and if to have children in the form of contraception and family planning.
3 I'm sure you can can find some agenda-driven institutions and scientists to support your claims

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#1028 Jan 26, 2013
RubyTheDyke wrote:
<quoted text>
I. Perhaps-I've never advocated against poyamorous relationships.
2. The "cultural left" has always advocated economic and social policies designed to enhance and aid families, especially with the idea of enhancing the quality of life for the poorest among us-which by the way includes reproductive power over when and if to have children in the form of contraception and family planning.
3 I'm sure you can can find some agenda-driven institutions and scientists to support your claims
Also curious as to why my advocacy of two parent family is somehow that "slippery slope to polygamy" but your same advocacyis not

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Judge jails Kentucky clerk for refusing marriag... 7 min Rainbow Kid 186
News Kentucky clerk rejects couples again: 'They don... 7 min MuswellHillUK 104
News The Latest: Husband: Kentucky clerk is 'standin... 10 min Cujo 30
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 17 min Honey Bee 3,544
News Kentucky clerk defies order, refuses to issue s... 20 min Ol Kentuckin 644
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 23 min Respect71 25,989
News Kentucky clerk, citing God, defies courts on ga... 27 min WeTheSheeple 57
News Supreme Court rules against clerk in gay marria... 13 hr TomInElPaso 111
More from around the web