This thread started in the Chamber and devolved into normal bickering, but I thought some of the points raised merited more discussion. So here is the OP:
I posted something after closure in an X-post with Truronian, who (rightly) closed the thread. Thought it was unseemly to post something no one could respond to after closure so here is my response to the always thought provoking call of the question, "discuss:" (all references to posts and posters are in previous linked thread)
Studies such as the one cited by Mech654 show that same sex parents raise healthy well-adjusted children just as well as straight parents. Courts analyzing state laws banning gay couples from adopting children--such as Florida--have looked at these studies and considered the state's (flimsy) arguments to the contrary and found that by and large there is no legitimate public policy reason to ban gays from having children.
Besides, if the argument is "well we need kids to have a mom and a dad" are we going to ban single parent households? Are we going to ban divorce? Are we going to ban marriages that do not result in any children, as Cutlass asked? Of course not. Why are these obvious counterpoints consistently ignored? Because the gay marriage debate is fundamentally a religious/socially-conservative battle founded on outmoded ideals that, in our modern world, are instantly recognized as backwards unless shrouded in a more secular policy debate, like the attempt of the OP. Of course these so-called policy arguments are ultimately found to be frivolous if actually examined, such as in the Courts. The arguments raised in the OP are the same recycled and rehashed social conservative talking points found in so many group chain emails, "studies" by conservative thinktanks, and trial briefs of socially conservative non-profits that push the conservative social agenda in the court system. These arguments are not only scientifically unsound, they are becoming culturally outdated and desperately trying to seek relevance in a world that no longer needs them.
As to the nuclear family and why the government encouraged it so heavily in the 1950's, here are my thoughts. These are my own, I did not get these from a google article or a blog, so don't ask me for sources.
The Nuclear family drove material consumption in its heyday from the 1940's through the 1970's. This is why it is "subsidized," i.e., encouraged through tax incentives. Nuclear families, as opposed to extended families, bought their own homes, bought their own refrigerators, bought their own TVs, bought their own cars, and so on and so forth. As opposed to the extended family, which encouraged more community oriented sharing of goods, since the whole family lived together or relatively close together and shared resources. Sharing resources means you are buying less crap which means society as a whole is not consuming as many goods, which is bad (if you believe that the engine of our capitalist world requires high rates of artificially encouraged consumption.) If you are a real hardcore American Patriot, you could probably create some tangential relation between extended families and communism.
Of course, the nuclear family of the 1950s is on the decline, but this is not due to same sex marriage. There are more single parent households and childless households than ever before. This is not necessarily bad from the consumerist standpoint either; the main need there is simply smaller and smaller living units that need to buy their own stuff (and now with a modern flavor: health insurance!). Same sex marriage, or a same sex household, perfectly fits the paradigm of breaking society up into smaller units that individually need to purchase more "stuff" for themselves. There is no reason to not provide the same tax incentives to a same sex household as any other, other than outmoded socially conservative ideals.
TL;DR: So really, same sex marriage is good for the economy, and if you're against it you're against jobs and prosperity! USA #1!
I posted something after closure in an X-post with Truronian, who (rightly) closed the thread. Thought it was unseemly to post something no one could respond to after closure so here is my response to the always thought provoking call of the question, "discuss:" (all references to posts and posters are in previous linked thread)
Studies such as the one cited by Mech654 show that same sex parents raise healthy well-adjusted children just as well as straight parents. Courts analyzing state laws banning gay couples from adopting children--such as Florida--have looked at these studies and considered the state's (flimsy) arguments to the contrary and found that by and large there is no legitimate public policy reason to ban gays from having children.
Besides, if the argument is "well we need kids to have a mom and a dad" are we going to ban single parent households? Are we going to ban divorce? Are we going to ban marriages that do not result in any children, as Cutlass asked? Of course not. Why are these obvious counterpoints consistently ignored? Because the gay marriage debate is fundamentally a religious/socially-conservative battle founded on outmoded ideals that, in our modern world, are instantly recognized as backwards unless shrouded in a more secular policy debate, like the attempt of the OP. Of course these so-called policy arguments are ultimately found to be frivolous if actually examined, such as in the Courts. The arguments raised in the OP are the same recycled and rehashed social conservative talking points found in so many group chain emails, "studies" by conservative thinktanks, and trial briefs of socially conservative non-profits that push the conservative social agenda in the court system. These arguments are not only scientifically unsound, they are becoming culturally outdated and desperately trying to seek relevance in a world that no longer needs them.
As to the nuclear family and why the government encouraged it so heavily in the 1950's, here are my thoughts. These are my own, I did not get these from a google article or a blog, so don't ask me for sources.
The Nuclear family drove material consumption in its heyday from the 1940's through the 1970's. This is why it is "subsidized," i.e., encouraged through tax incentives. Nuclear families, as opposed to extended families, bought their own homes, bought their own refrigerators, bought their own TVs, bought their own cars, and so on and so forth. As opposed to the extended family, which encouraged more community oriented sharing of goods, since the whole family lived together or relatively close together and shared resources. Sharing resources means you are buying less crap which means society as a whole is not consuming as many goods, which is bad (if you believe that the engine of our capitalist world requires high rates of artificially encouraged consumption.) If you are a real hardcore American Patriot, you could probably create some tangential relation between extended families and communism.
Of course, the nuclear family of the 1950s is on the decline, but this is not due to same sex marriage. There are more single parent households and childless households than ever before. This is not necessarily bad from the consumerist standpoint either; the main need there is simply smaller and smaller living units that need to buy their own stuff (and now with a modern flavor: health insurance!). Same sex marriage, or a same sex household, perfectly fits the paradigm of breaking society up into smaller units that individually need to purchase more "stuff" for themselves. There is no reason to not provide the same tax incentives to a same sex household as any other, other than outmoded socially conservative ideals.
TL;DR: So really, same sex marriage is good for the economy, and if you're against it you're against jobs and prosperity! USA #1!
I didn't see much of anything substantive, just "they rebutted this in that article" or "here is a list of links."
