Lawyers: Gay marriage a detriment to children

[doggie]

I think this gets to the heart of it. the conservatives are living in the 15th century the claim is people if they can have gay marriage people will stop getting married to make children and only get married because they love each other. Of course we all know marriage stay together only because fate children and they thrive in that situation :roll: So I guess this is the real thing if people get married only because f love they won't stay together.

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268743/conten ... d=SC1e1NGB

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - Lawyers who are appealing a federal judge's ruling that overturned Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage said in a court filing Monday that legalizing gay marriage would harm children, undermine society and make traditional marriages unstable.

The Alliance Defending Freedom cited courts and anthropologists, saying children are better off in a home with a mother and a father. It said traditional couples would be less likely to marry, or stay together, if marriage became a genderless institution not focused on procreation.

U.S. District Judge Terence Kern ruled last month against Tulsa County Court Clerk Sally Howe Smith, whose office refused to grant a marriage license to two women who wanted to marry. Monday's appeal is the first step in the process ahead of an April 17 hearing before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

In its court filing Monday, Alliance said marriages should be about children, not adults.

"Marriage encourages mothers and fathers to remain together and care for the children born of their union," the group's 93-page filing said. Severing the link, it said, "would powerfully convey that marriage exists to advance adult desires rather than serving children's needs."

Citing a court opinion from 1888 - 19 years before Oklahoma's statehood - Alliance said marriage "is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress," and cited a 1978 ruling that said traditional marriage was "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the (human) race."

[lizziesmom]

Where did all the gay children come from? Heterosexual marriages. The deliberate ignorance and bias of some is ridiculous. Hopefully they will remain in the minority. Gays would like to have the same rights as everyone else -- to marry, have children and BE LEFT ALONE BY JUDGMENTAL ASSHOLES.

[docmom]

I wonder if they are aware that it is perfectly possible for gay men and women to have children- actual biological children? In fact, most of my married gay friends do have kids.

In any case, marriage cannot only be about procreation or we would have to ban infertile couples from marrying and ban marriage in anyone over childbearing age.

The stupid is so strong in these people.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I've heard this argument before - before it was just a fundie cause, similar arguments against gay marriage were made by the Canadian government (when the Liberals were in power) and by medical ethicist Margaret Somerville.

http://canlii.ca/en/on/onca/doc/2003/20 ... 26403.html

Despite that, nobody has really managed to explain just how exactly allowing people of the same sex to get married threatens opposite sex marriages. Maybe that's because it doesn't.

Two articles I like by some rational conservatives who don't see a link either:

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/bravo-no ... -marriage/

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/27/f ... .marriage/

We have a perfect, near-laboratory conditions to test the "gay marriage kills straight marriage" claim. Over the past 10 years, same sex marriage has been legal in some places, and not in others. Just look at how marriage and divorce rates have changed over the past 10 years, and see if there is any statistical difference between places with and without same-sex marriage. If there was, opponents would have an argument - but there wasn't, so they don't.

[doggie]

Sure he explains t people will only get married for love and not for making children and thats horrible. of course anymore thats pretty much why people get married and he seems to have missed the memo.

[linnea27]

that makes no kinds of sense.

And I'm sorry, but I though we encouraged people to marry for love. I am a straight woman and I didn't marry for procreative purposes.

[snarktastic]

Well, if marriage is all about procreation, time to ban marriage amongst the infertile I say.

All those selfish people getting married even though they're both past 50 are putting their adult desires before childrens' welfare. And don't get me started on couples who tie the knot even though they know that she's got endometriosis!

:angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead:

[lawlifelgbt]

I wrote a paper for my law journal, and part of it was debunking these myths. I don't have the exact source off the top of my head, but one of the briefs in Windsor factually backed up that there are lower divorce rates in marriage equality states, and that BLAG's ideas had no factual ground.

[thoughtful]

If marriage is only for procreation, why is ourtime.com running TV ads?

[No Cure for Stupid]

Statistically, divorce rates are lower in equal-marriage places.

[DGayle]

The only way I can see same-sex marriage threatening any opposite-sex marriage is if one or both of the spouses is gay, and only entered an opposite-sex marriage out of coercion, and decides to end it because that person now has freedom.

What do those people think should happen to the biological children of gay people? Do they think the children should be taken away and adopted to straight people? If not, then how is marriage hurting the kids if non-marriage doesn't?