CA Prop. 8 shot down

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
dixon76710 said:
Here is yet another

Family Structure And Children’s Physical And Mental Health
Matthew D. Bramlett and Stephen J. Blumberg

Abstract
Using the 2003 National Survey of Children’s Health, this paper examines the physical and mental health of children by family structure. Children in step, single-mother, or grandparent-only families had poorer health than children living with two biological parents.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/26/2/549.full

Your personal proclamations are meaningless.
Click to expand...

Now this link actually addresses what you have been talking about. But one oddity I saw was:

"After demographics were adjusted for (Exhibit 3), the mental health of children in single-father families was comparable to that of children living with both biological parents, and, with the exception of dental health, the physical health of children in single-father families was better."

I also noted that the households with two biological parents were more affluent. Which begs the question, is it a matter of biological parenting or money?
 
WinterBorn said:
I also noted that the households with two biological parents were more affluent. Which begs the question, is it a matter of biological parenting or money?
Click to expand...

You still dont seem to grasp that the best way to ensure that a child has TWO parents is to be born into a home with both their mother and father.
 
dixon76710 said:
You still dont seem to grasp that the best way to ensure that a child has TWO parents is to be born into a home with both their mother and father.
Click to expand...

I grasp it just fine. You want the world to be like Ozzie & Harriet, but that just ain't reality.

And it is certainly not justification for a continued ban on gay marriage.

Especially since the best research you have shown also says a single parent home with only a father has just as good a health as homes with two biological parents and better physical health. Just imagine how good it would be with two fathers.

The first link looked at two parent vs one parent homes, and the second suggested affuence may be a big factor.
 
dixon76710 said:
You still dont seem to grasp that the best way to ensure that a child has TWO parents is to be born into a home with both their mother and father.
Click to expand...


DO you feel the same way when there are marriages in which the couple does not procreate, but choose to adopt instead. Why are there no laws against adoption?

anyway some interesting links--
http://www.livescience.com/6073-children-raised-lesbians-fine-studies-show.html

and


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100831091240.htm
 
WinterBorn said:
I grasp it just fine. You want the world to be like Ozzie & Harriet, but that just ain't reality.

And it is certainly not justification for a continued ban on gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Well, certainly not down at the gay bath house but in courts of law, across the country, it is all the justification needed
 
dixon76710 said:
Well, certainly not down at the gay bath house but in courts of law, across the country, it is all the justification needed
Click to expand...

As the same "justification" used against interracial marriages in the past.

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/s98alouis.htm

More specifically it will focus on how these marriages have affected the children throughout history and the effects interracial marriages have on children. The Supreme Court case, which directly speaks to this topic, is Loving v. Virginia. In 1958 Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter married in Washington, D.C. and returned to Virginia together as husband and wife. Richard was White and Mildred was Black. The problem arose in that since 1961 Virginia banned interracial marriages. The Lovings were prosecuted under a statute enacted in 1924 entitled "An Act to Preserve Racial Integrity."1 The statute said that in Virginia no White person could marry anyone other than a white person.2 The law made it a crime not only to enter into an interracial marriage in the State of Virginia, but it also criminalized interracial marriages outside the state with the intent of evading Virginia's prohibition.3 Furthermore the law stated that children born out of such a union were deemed in the eyes of the State to be illegitimate and without the protections and privileges accorded to the children of lawfully wedded parents.
 
dixon76710 said:
No, purifying the white race isnt a legitimate governmental interest. Improving the well being of children is such an interest.
Click to expand...

So are you also advocating that we end adoption? Your argument appears to be that children do better under their Biological parents, right? Under that logic you should be equally at arms against married heterosexual people who adopt.
 
dixon76710 said:
No, purifying the white race isnt a legitimate governmental interest. Improving the well being of children is such an interest.
Click to expand...

While this case dealt with race, it doesn't change the fact that the right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice. Any restriction on that choice is subject to challenge and review based on the fact that marriage is recognized as a fundamental right. So, the fundamental right to marry is the right to marry the person of one's choice. This does not automatically make any restriction on the choice of who we marry unconstitutional, but the government must prove – and the burden of proof is on the government – that the restriction is not arbitrary and that it is necessary in order to further some purpose.

We have the right to marry the person of our choice and the government may only restrict that choice if it serves a valid State interest and the restriction is necessary in order to further that interest.
 
Darla said:
Another paternalistic view of marriage. Tell us Mr. Misogynist, what on earth does that have to do with gays marrying??? You didn't even answer his question, in context. In context, he wanted to know what procreation has to do with denying gays the legal rights that heterosexuals enjoy to visitation rights, inheritance rights, and property rights.

You posted word salad in response.
Click to expand...

The mind boggles. Dixon is stuck in pre-WWII mode. How many women have spent most of their adult lives pregnant, etc.? Dixon forgot to add that more than half of all women work outside the home. Guess he's never heard of the second shift.
 
christiefan915 said:
The mind boggles. Dixon is stuck in pre-WWII mode. How many women have spent most of their adult lives pregnant, etc.? Dixon forgot to add that more than half of all women work outside the home. Guess he's never heard of the second shift.
Click to expand...

I would like to find his home and unchain his wife. ;)
 
Southern Chicken said:
So are you also advocating that we end adoption? Your argument appears to be that children do better under their Biological parents, right? Under that logic you should be equally at arms against married heterosexual people who adopt.
Click to expand...

You make no sense. Like I said, adoptive parents is more beneficial to children when compared to orphanages or foster care. Laws to improve the well being of children serve a legitimate governmental interest.
 
christiefan915 said:
The mind boggles. Dixon is stuck in pre-WWII mode. How many women have spent most of their adult lives pregnant, etc.? Dixon forgot to add that more than half of all women work outside the home. Guess he's never heard of the second shift.
Click to expand...

Nothing there that contradict a thing Ive said
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top