McCain on gay adoption - reading this made my head hurt...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Who is saying there is something intrinsically wrong with the traditional family and those who advocate them are luntatics? I don't remember anyone saying that. What I understand as the argument is that we need, as a society, to be more accepting and inclusive of some of the non traditional families - unmarried couples, divorced and remarried as well as same sex couples for example. Not doing so is unnecessarily oppresive because there is no evidence, not one wit of evidence, not even a slight suggestion of evidence that accepting them has a detremintal effect on society at large.

Word.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Who is saying there is something intrinsically wrong with the traditional family and those who advocate them are luntatics? I don't remember anyone saying that. What I understand as the argument is that we need, as a society, to be more accepting and inclusive of some of the non traditional families - unmarried couples, divorced and remarried as well as same sex couples for example. Not doing so is unnecessarily oppresive because there is no evidence, not one wit of evidence, not even a slight suggestion of evidence that accepting them has a detremintal effect on society at large.

I'd agree with you, except for the fact that the "married heterosexual two-parent household" is far from the majority nowadays. I'm not going to say that homosexual couples are the majority (because they aren't), but what is are single parents or unmarried couples in cohabitation.

I'm sure it doesn't really matter if the parents are married or merely "boyfriend and girlfriend" in terms of child development, but that doesn't change the fact that the "traditional family" as we have known it is disappearing fast. Within a generation, the "traditional family" will become "non-traditional" while what was once considered "non-traditional" would be seen as "traditional."

I wonder if anyone will speak up on their behalf and demand that people be more "accepting and inclusive" of those families? B)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Who is saying there is something intrinsically wrong with the traditional family and those who advocate them are luntatics? I don't remember anyone saying that. What I understand as the argument is that we need, as a society, to be more accepting and inclusive of some of the non traditional families - unmarried couples, divorced and remarried as well as same sex couples for example. Not doing so is unnecessarily oppresive because there is no evidence, not one wit of evidence, not even a slight suggestion of evidence that accepting them has a detremintal effect on society at large.

I'd agree with you, except for the fact that the "married heterosexual two-parent household" is far from the majority nowadays. I'm not going to say that homosexual couples are the majority (because they aren't), but what is are single parents or unmarried couples in cohabitation.

I'm sure it doesn't really matter if the parents are married or merely "boyfriend and girlfriend" in terms of child development, but that doesn't change the fact that the "traditional family" as we have known it is disappearing fast. Within a generation, the "traditional family" will become "non-traditional" while what was once considered "non-traditional" would be seen as "traditional."

I wonder if anyone will speak up on their behalf and demand that people be more "accepting and inclusive" of those families? B)

Whether or not "traditional" marriage becomes a rarity (given that many marriages end in divorce - as opposed to years ago when divorce was "scandalous" this isn't entirely surprising) do you honestly believe that a single person, a gay couple or a couple in cohabitation are ever going to have an advantage over a heterosexual married couple in terms of being able to adopt a child?

Other than that I'm trying very hard to think of an example where being married will lead to the married couple being somehow socially disadvantaged.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Who is saying there is something intrinsically wrong with the traditional family and those who advocate them are luntatics? I don't remember anyone saying that. What I understand as the argument is that we need, as a society, to be more accepting and inclusive of some of the non traditional families - unmarried couples, divorced and remarried as well as same sex couples for example. Not doing so is unnecessarily oppresive because there is no evidence, not one wit of evidence, not even a slight suggestion of evidence that accepting them has a detremintal effect on society at large.

I'd agree with you, except for the fact that the "married heterosexual two-parent household" is far from the majority nowadays. I'm not going to say that homosexual couples are the majority (because they aren't), but what is are single parents or unmarried couples in cohabitation.

I'm sure it doesn't really matter if the parents are married or merely "boyfriend and girlfriend" in terms of child development, but that doesn't change the fact that the "traditional family" as we have known it is disappearing fast. Within a generation, the "traditional family" will become "non-traditional" while what was once considered "non-traditional" would be seen as "traditional."

I wonder if anyone will speak up on their behalf and demand that people be more "accepting and inclusive" of those families? B)

Whether or not "traditional" marriage becomes a rarity (given that many marriages end in divorce - as opposed to years ago when divorce was "scandalous" this isn't entirely surprising) do you honestly believe that a single person, a gay couple or a couple in cohabitation are ever going to have an advantage over a heterosexual married couple in terms of being able to adopt a child?

Other than that I'm trying very hard to think of an example where being married will lead to the married couple being somehow socially disadvantaged.

It may not be a tangible disadvantage.

Let's look at issues such as divorce, teen pregnancy, having children when not married, homosexual couples, etc. Obviously all of this occurred decades before us, but it wasn't socially acceptable. There was a stigma attached to each of them -- some more than others -- but none were considered "okay" or a "fact of life" as they are today.

What I'm getting at is times change and so do the ideas people have. What once may be considered "normal," may no longer be such years down the road. So while in years past and even today, heterosexual married couples aren't publicly disadvantaged, that doesn't mean they won't become so in the future, when perhaps the divorce rate rises even higher (if such a thing is even possible) and cohabiting couples far outnumber married ones.

Would someone come along and attack or take possessions away from a married couple? I highly doubt it. But as I said, the disadvantage may be intangible. A husband or wife may have more difficulties in social or work settings, because they're no longer "like everyone else." Sure, it may have been the other way around at one time (and I'm not suggesting that was right, either), but would doing such a thing really be right? It wouldn't change anything in the past and it'd only breed resentment in the future.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Or maybe that people simply don't judge people so much nowadays on their lifestyles or living arrangements. No reason to believe there would be some sort of reverse-backlash against married couples.