Thursday, April 9, 2009

Why I've Yet to Buy It

The one argument that could win me over in regards to same-sex marriage is that a child needs both a male and a female for parents, that a child not reared by a male and a female is necessarily in deficit because and only because of the lack of either a male or a female parent.

So far, the only "evidence" provided to support the argument is purely theoretical and is not supported by what is actually happening in real life.

Those who use the argument often act as though it would be some major experiment, far too risky to make, digressing from the "traditional" family. They act as though there aren't (and have never been) any children whom we can observe and who are reared by monogamous same-sex couples.

When they do recognize such families, it's almost always with an attitude of "sure, they're great families, but [theoretically]..."

If you want to convince me to not support gay marriage, then show me hard evidence that such a marriage is necessarily less suitable to raise a child than heterosexual marriage -- not theoretical "evidence."

Furthermore, you won't be able to convince me by dangling an eternal carrot in front of my face. You won't be able to convince me by using your standards or morality (as an unrelated example, you cannot convince me not to shop on Tuesday because it is a holy day for you). You won't be able to convince me as a soothsayer.

Again, you will only be able to convince me by showing me how children being raised by homosexual couples are hurt by not being raised by heterosexual parents.

The data is there to observe; there is no experiment; no guesses have to be made.


  1. I can't buy it. I mean, kids grow up with single parents, never knowing their other parent, or with divorced parents, or in orphanages, and those kids have the same chances as everyone else. If they don't, it's because of other stresses. We have a huge number of kids growing up outside of a "traditional" marriage that are just fine.

  2. The simple fact of the matter is that the, so called, "traditional marriage" with a mom, dad, and a gaggle of kids has become the minority in our society. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, the traditional family has not been the majority since 1967.

    Most kids grow up, at least at some point in their lives, with a single parent, or a divorced parent where they are shuttled back and forth. Even if they do have both biological parents living at home - often both parents work and the children are effectively raised by the day care center.

  3. Even though there is a huge amount of data showing, well, all this, that the kids of gays and lesbians are doing fine, I think there's a broader point here.

    How can we justify when it's time to use the government to step into, measure, and judge the worthiness of families, even because of data showing a determent to the children they raise? Abuse is one thing--there the law has to invade the family--but what if there was, say, a 10% increase in learning disorders or something in GLBT families?

    Consider, quoting myself :-) from isocrat:

    "Easily, it may be shown in the research on average that there are measurable detriments for children of parents who: live in poverty (17), are under twenty years of age (18), had prior marriages (19), have general anxiety disorder or have been diagnosed with depression (20, 21, 22), are deaf (23, 24, 25), are mixed race couples (26), and we could go on and on. "

    I hate to get near this awful argument, but are we going to keep marriage from the poor? The deaf? Their children, on average, have deficits in the research, and that's the argument anti-gay rights folks make here, and they even seem comfortable making it when the data isn't on their side.

    Simply, on other groups allowed to marry we have a consensus of data showing some detriment, so should we broadcast that in commercials? Are we going to condone judging these individuals on averages? Use it to determine the rights of our neighbor's families? I mean what kind of crazy double standard is it when rapists can get married and have children, but gay couples... I don't know about that "dangerous experiment"?

    To me this reasoning sounds rather draconian and surrenders too much to the state, giving government tools no one would want used on their family, because, really, there is no perfect family and if we repeatedly kept those below average from marriage we'd eventually have no marriages :-). I think most would see the error here when it's applied outside of GLBT issues. I think most people would know marriage helps all families. Marriage helps children.

    Boy, I went on too long there :-).