Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Got you there, on this continent, the people that were here before the Pilgrims and each subsequent immigrant, had same sex unions. In history there have been same sex unions.
Why do we have to make it about America specifically? Furthermore, does the "original definition" even matter at all? Such concepts are not carved out of solid diamond and frozen in time forever.
Sure it matters.
It matters how we get from point A to point B in such short period of time.
I'm talking about the original definition. The better definition. The one that was not influenced by massive propaganda and court interpretations.
In an ideal, western nuclear family it is.
You mean the 'original definition' where marriage was a contract between the husband and a female's father? Like under the English law of Coverture? Where marriage was a transfer of a female's legal rights from her father to her husband? Where females were little more than property? Where husbands had the legal right to beat and rape their wives?
"Coverture was a legal doctrine whereby, upon marriage, a woman's legal rights and obligations were subsumed by those of her husband, in accordance with the wife's legal status of feme covert. Coverture was enshrined in the common law of England for several centuries and throughout most of the 19th century, influencing some other common-law jurisdictions. The idea was described in William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England in the late 18th century."
Yeah... I'm sure women would love to go back to 'traditional' marriage.
Or do you mean the Biblical definition? Let's not even go there shall we?
Got you there, on this continent, the people that were here before the Pilgrims and each subsequent immigrant, had same sex unions. In history there have been same sex unions.
Hey, before Constantinople became Turkey...the Ottoman Empire did a lot.of.things. What's your point?
That wasn't America then.
Culture is a societal thing, not a land mass thing.
You mean the 'original definition' where marriage was a contract between the husband to be and a female's father? Like under the English law of Coverture? Where marriage was a transfer of a female's legal rights from her father to her husband? Where females were little more than property? Where husbands had the legal right to beat and rape their wives?
Coverture was a legal doctrine whereby, upon marriage, a woman's legal rights and obligations were subsumed by those of her husband, in accordance with the wife's legal status of feme covert. Coverture was enshrined in the common law of England for several centuries and throughout most of the 19th century, influencing some other common-law jurisdictions. The idea was described in William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England in the late 18th century.
Yeah... I'm sure women would love to go back to 'traditional' marriage.
I really like when the less educated take things out of historical context. Like the fact that in Middle Ages everybody was someone else's property and could be beaten and killed without any recourse, peasants were simply traded and knights expected to be unconditionally obedient and offer their lives if requested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
You mean the 'original definition' where marriage was a contract between the husband to be and a female's father? Like under the English law of Coverture? Where marriage was a transfer of a female's legal rights from her father to her husband? Where females were little more than property? Where husbands had the legal right to beat and rape their wives?
Coverture was a legal doctrine whereby, upon marriage, a woman's legal rights and obligations were subsumed by those of her husband, in accordance with the wife's legal status of feme covert. Coverture was enshrined in the common law of England for several centuries and throughout most of the 19th century, influencing some other common-law jurisdictions. The idea was described in William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England in the late 18th century.
Yeah... I'm sure women would love to go back to 'traditional' marriage.
I don't think the sample is large enough and representative to make a conclusion at this point.
Never before same sex union were allowed to raise children so we don't have any reliable and representative data on the subject either. The risk is too big.
A Catholic website using an opinion piece from Tracy Hansen from NARTH? The conservative religious anti-gay fringe group who promote 'pray-away-the-gay' quackery? Seriously?
There have been studies for over 40 years.
And I guess you missed this from earlier in the thread:
The entrenched conviction that children need both a mother and a father inflames culture wars over single motherhood, divorce, gay marriage, and gay parenting. Research to date, however, does not support this claim. Contrary to popular belief, studies have not shown that "compared to all other family forms, families headed by married, biological parents are best for children" (Popenoe, quoted in Center for Marriage and Family, p. 1).
Research has not identified any gender-exclusive parenting abilities (with the partial exception of lactation). Our analysis confirms an emerging consensus among prominent researchers of fathering and child development. The third edition of Lamb's (1997) authoritative anthology directly reversed the inaugural volume's premise when it concluded that "very little about the gender of the parent seems to be distinctly important" (p. 10). Likewise, in Fatherneed, Pruett (2000), a prominent advocate of involved fathering, confided, "I also now realize that most of the enduring parental skills are probably, in the end, not dependent on gender" (p. 18).
It's your prejudice that is too big.
I'm curious -Why do you use the word "Liberal" in your username? Your views are far from liberal.
I like how you link a nice comprehensive paper that references about 100 studies from the 80's and 90's. Creating a rabbit hole that nobody with less than an hour or so to spare would ever jump down..only to find out that they are all the same.
Sample size....sample size...sample size...
You can use some.grandiose effect like "CRACKPOT COLLEGIATE SLACKER ACADEMY of PSYCHIATRY - represented by infinite nutjobs"
it doesn't change this fact.
Uhuh. Because you read it all in 20 minutes? Please.
I also linked to what the vast majority of health professionals say. Do you think you know better than all of them? Based on what?
I make no apologies for presenting research to combat ignorance and prejudice. If it's too much for you, don't read it. But don't try to claim you know anything about it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
