Skip to main content

View Diary: Marriage is meant to protect society from the threat of Bristol Palin's out-of-wedlock baby (129 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I beg to differ (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kmfmstar

    My father married a mentally handicapped woman who brought me into this world, and my early life was dangerous. He divorced and remarried Cinderella's stepmom, who was abusive and convinced him to be abusive (it made her happy when I was punished) and I ended up in a distracting at her urging.

    And my kids are much happier now that I am not living with there Aspie father. They love him and he is a good man, but he cannot handle the stress of parenting beyond one to two days at a stretch.

    So I definitely don't agree that marriage protects kids. Having caretakers who love you and raise you well and look out for you protects kids, whether that is your single grandmother, your unmarried heterosexual or homosexual parents, or your older brother or sister. The more good caregivers a kid has in his or her life, the better.

    We Won't Let Republicans Replace Medicare with GOP Vouchercare!

    by CatM on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:27:15 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I ended up in a fostercare (0+ / 0-)

      Not a "distracting." stupid iPhone. What typo could possibly turn fostercare into distracting?

      We Won't Let Republicans Replace Medicare with GOP Vouchercare!

      by CatM on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:29:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Disingenuous to pretend (0+ / 0-)

      my statement was intended to mean that all marriages will protect all kids in all circumstances.   But one's biological progenitors and/or caregivers could just as easily be unkind and abusive without the benefit of marriage, yes?

      The point is that having a greater number of good caretakers, and the more those caretakers have LEGAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES, the more a given child has a better CHANCE (not a guarantee) of getting the love and support they deserve.

      "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

      by lgmcp on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:33:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not pretending anything (0+ / 0-)

        I do not think marriage has anything directly to do with whether children are raised better, whereas you implied that it did. There are legal advantages some children might benefit from if their parents are married like inheritance and social security, but then again there are legal disadvantages in some cases.

        I agree it is about the quality of the caregivers. Whether they are married doesn't mean a whole lot unless it makes those caregivers happy and more likely to be better parents and certainly marriage does not guarantee and can even prevent that.

        We Won't Let Republicans Replace Medicare with GOP Vouchercare!

        by CatM on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:41:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you were banned from marrying your partner (0+ / 0-)

          you might see it differently.

          "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

          by lgmcp on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:45:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think you misunderstand (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lgmcp

            I fully support marriage equality. My teenaged son is bisexual (though he has only dated boys), and I want him to have the same rights as anyone. I do not think marriage is directly beneficial to kids. It depends on the people getting married, and a single mom or unmarried couple can provide just as good of a home. so, no, I don't think I would change my mind and feel that somehow marriage is a magical institution that makes kids' lives better.

            That has nothing to do with my strong conviction that any two people who are not closely related should be able to marry whomever they please. It has nothing to do with it benefitting anyone. It is a right and nobody should be deprived of that right (or afforded that right) simply based on whether they can procreate naturally with one another.

            We Won't Let Republicans Replace Medicare with GOP Vouchercare!

            by CatM on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:59:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So you think the benefits of marriage equality (0+ / 0-)

              are strictly emotional?  I beg to differ.  There are many important legal and financial rights incurred, for the adults AND for their children.

              "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

              by lgmcp on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:02:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That is not what I said (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lgmcp

                I am saying that if marriage is a right for some people, it should be a right for all and that right should be bestowed whether one believes marriage has tangible benefits or not. Obviously, the fact that the law distinguishes between what it allows for married couples versus unmarried couples might make some people want to get married, but even if the law made no such distinction (say, by creating civil union statutes for homosexuals that offered every benefit excel the word "marriage") I would consider that an unfair deprivation of some people's rights.

                Marriage has legal advantages and legal disadvantages. For example, my sister's husband bounced a lot of checks on their account without her knowledge, and she was obligated to pay them even after she divorced him. and my ongoing marriage to a husband I have not lived with for 11 years gives me access to healthcare, etc., but makes it more difficult for my kids to get financial aid for college even though he doesn't give us a huge share of his income (and I don't ask for it because I do ok without it).

                But if someone wants the advantages and disadvantages, real or perceived, of marriage, they should have that right. I seriously don't get why you want some sort of debate with me on it. I don't have to agree with you on the reasons why marriage equality is essential as long as we both agree that it is essential.

                We Won't Let Republicans Replace Medicare with GOP Vouchercare!

                by CatM on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:19:06 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Debating is part of what we do here (0+ / 0-)

                  and I simply disagree with your contention that the practical advantages of marriage to families is so mixed as to be irrelevant.  On the contrary, I think there is evidence that the advantages of legally recognized status strongly outnumber the disadvantages

                  However I'm glad we agree on the desired political endpoint.  Thanks for the civil replies, and go in peace!  

                  "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

                  by lgmcp on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:27:07 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  *sigh* (0+ / 0-)

                    I think I am just not communicating what I mean. I am saying, relevant or not, these benefits have no bearing on whether someone should have the right to marry. Just like you should have the right to vote even if you are going to vote for Mickey Mouse, where write in candidates are allowed.

                    You were rather vague in your post about marriage benefitting children, and I simply disagree that something inherent in marriage benefits children. If that were the case, all children would benefit from having married parents and clearly some do not.  I am sure there are legal benefits, although increasingly children are being afforded those same benefits when their parents are not married.

                    But to me, that is irrelevant as to the point of whether the law should let same sex couples get married. I am sure it is relevant to those individuals and is probably necessary to make a legal argument that frankly should not have to even be made because clearly just saying we deserve equal rights isn't going to do it right now.

                    We Won't Let Republicans Replace Medicare with GOP Vouchercare!

                    by CatM on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:38:45 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (140)
  • Community (59)
  • Elections (39)
  • Civil Rights (36)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Culture (32)
  • Law (27)
  • Environment (26)
  • Baltimore (26)
  • Texas (26)
  • Economy (26)
  • Labor (23)
  • Bernie Sanders (23)
  • Hillary Clinton (22)
  • Health Care (18)
  • Republicans (18)
  • Rescued (18)
  • Barack Obama (17)
  • International (17)
  • Freddie Gray (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site