How does gay marriage affect the rights of fathers?

From an answer to my last question:





';Gay Marriage will and has where it has been adopted eroded the Rights of Biological Fathers.';





anyone care to explain how?How does gay marriage affect the rights of fathers?
So let me get this right, people don't want to allow gays to get married (particularily gay women) because they feel that women will think that they don't ';need'; a man to have a child.





WHAT!?


None of this is making any sense.





Sorry to burst some people's bubbles but a woman is just as capable of raising a child as any man. Also a woman doesn't need a man to have a kid. Maybe to have sperm she does but no she doesn't need a man.





So basicly people think that gay rights is making men seem like they are unneeded for children. Awe, get the frick over it!!!





My boyfriend and I are just as capable of raising a child as any straight couple and I don't understand how gay marriage takes away the rights of the fathers. I know a lesbian couple with kids, they are fantastic mothers and I think they provide a perfect example to their daughters that you don't need a man. We need to find a way to make women more independant and not so dependant on a man. It wold solve a lot of issues.





I read that study at the top and I have no friggin clue what it's talking about. I don't see anything it's trying to prove. Sorry but I don't.





-ConnorHow does gay marriage affect the rights of fathers?
There may be many reasons to marry, but marriage serves only one purpose. The only purpose for marriage is so a man and a woman will not have illegitimate children, plain and simple. Please understand that most people, me included, are all for gay rights. Marriage isn't a constitutional right, not even for heterosexual couples. The agenda of the so-called gay marriage proponents isn't so everyone has equal rights. The agenda is concerning acceptance of their lifestyle. Common sense should be apparent concerning this issue, but it's being twisted. For example, if two women wanted a child they would need the help of a man, directly or indirectly. There is no way to predict whether that child would ever need the father. Think about it, there is a reason it takes both a man and a woman to have a child. We would be selfish to assume that that child doesn't need both of those parents. There are different ways to raise a child successfully, but who can say to that child, ';you don't need a dad, or a mom';. We are the same society that takes pets away from their parents and think that that's perfectly ok.
Gay marriage doesn't affect the rights of fathers whatsoever with the exception that two gay men can legally adopt which is obviously a good thing.





What is frustrating is when people (generally in my experience men's rights groups) suggest that statistics show all sorts of problems that arise from fatherless families. These problems can't be assumed to exist in single sex families and here's why: Firstly, you can have a gay male couple (2 dads) this is always ignored because the focus is on single women or lesbian couples. Secondly, these statistics have been conducted under circumstances where a father should have been present but wasn't or when a father was present for a while and then wasn't. Both of those situations are essentially observations on dysfunctional familes (in that the family structure has changed from what it started as). Of course if a child's parents get divorced or if their dad does not see them either through the father's or mother's fault then that child is more likely to suffer from various issues. You would need additional proof, however, to show that these problems arise when there is no change to the family dynamic (as in a gay couple that don't get divorced and are always there for their children). There are no statistics that exist yet about children that have grown up in single sex familes because it hasn't been legal for long enough. I am very supportive of men's rights and very critical of feminism but this is one issue that the men's rights groups I've come across have got totally wrong, and regardless of what people might say it is homophobic, unquestionably.
After years, and years of waiting. Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals finally got the right to marry.


But after Prop. 8 the finally married couples are getting forced to divorce.


What the marriage helped with was:


Example:


If two guys had a daughter. And if one of the guys died, the other guy could keep his daughter without fighting.





Before that ever happened, lets take that example again, if one of the fathers' died, the other guy COULD NOT have his daughter.





But now that Prop. 8 did not go through (prop. 8 is where that L/G/B/T's could not marry) all the newly married couples, are not forced to divorce.


Which, is completely not fair.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/c-e/cha…





Father's Rights Before Gay Rights





February 27, 2004


by Mark Charalambous





The evidence is incontrovertible. The greatest predictor of social pathology in children is fatherlessness. Suicide. Teen pregnancy. Drug abuse. Crime. School dropouts. All the social pathologies of youth correlate higher with father absence than any other factor, including poverty.





In 1999, more than a quarter of all children lived without their father—17 million children—according to the Dept. of Health and Human Services. This is now a low-end estimate.





The highest rates of such pathologies occur in the African-American community. The single-mother family has unfortunately been the paradigm for black families in the U.S. for decades. We’ve all heard the statistics. One in three black men between 20 and 29 has some kind of involvement with the criminal justice system. No wonder responsible black leaders oppose gay marriage. They understand the staggering human and social cost of raising children without fathers. Society simply cannot afford this social experiment any longer.





Since the explosion of divorce and out-of-wedlock births and the feminization of family courts, rates of child pathologies in the other communities, including whites, are following suit.





And now, to add insult to injury, our judges are bending over backwards, usurping the democratic process, to further empower women who want nothing from men other than their issue and their paychecks. These are the same people, Margaret Marshall and her friends in the legal community, who have time and time again ruled against fathers who fight against overwhelming legal odds to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children.





The hue and cry about civil rights for lesbians and gays is particularly galling for Massachusetts’ fathers. Our civil and human rights have been ruthlessly violated by these same judges for decades. Whether it is affirming the “right” of a custodial mother to move with the child to the other side of the country, or overturning a lower court decision that actually brought a measure of rationality to the state’s notorious “abuse prevention” law (Ch. 209A), Margaret Marshall is always found on the same side of the issue: for the woman—regardless—and against fathers and their inalienable right to the custody, care and protection of their children.





Marshall epitomizes the feminization of the courts. Her gay marriage fatwa is the logical capstone to her transparent agenda: the remaking of society along feminist lines. Just check the N.O.W. web site. The redefinition of family requires the dismantling of the father-child relationship, which in turn requires the demonization of men. Fathers, the last impediment, must be redefined out of “family.” Operationally from the state’s point of view, “family” has already been redefined as “mother and children,” ever since “I’m a single mom” transmogrified from a social stigma to an entitlement. Gay marriage and same-sex “families” further erode the special nature of the biological family, and will make it even easier to discard dad.





The aimlessly spinning moral compass of Marshall and the liberal intelligentsia views same-sex families as an equivalent alternative to the biological nuclear family. Marshall can find no rational distinction between same-sex partners and normal couples. What’s more, she finds any contrary notions contemptuous. All that argues against her point of view are public opinion, common sense, natural law, decades of research showing that children need mothers and fathers, several thousand years of civilization, all the major religions that we know of … oh yes, and two billion years of the evolution of life on planet Earth.





Our children have suffered enough from these pious social engineers who seek to impose their heightened sense of moral relativism through judicial fiat. The legislature must permit the people to vote on the definition of marriage, and then the “gang of four” must be removed from the bench.
First post got it just about right.





My solution is to get rid of marriage licenses and tax cuts for married couples. Take that away and no one would have a problem.
Delila moot point... marriage and family are on the chopping block, one or two generations and it will be gone.
I find the notion strange, so I can't answer.


How would anyone adopting a child erode father's rights?
Why don't we just cut to the chase and you can tell me how wrong I am.\





Excellent answer Khankrum (I think that's the sp.)