It’s a little bit difficult to trace it down, but they seem to be referring to the Regnerus New Family Structures Study.When it comes to same-sex marriage, that study is a load of bull. The study’s categories “lesbian mother” and “gay father” include any case where the parent had a romantic relationship with some one of the same sex. It does not distinguish children brought up by same-sex couples from, for example, children who had a closeted parent whose opposite-sex marriage broke up. Less than 25% of the children in the study with a so-called “lesbian mother” lived with that mother and a female partner for three years or more, and less than 2% of the children with a so-called “gay father” lived with the father and a male partner for more than three years.
It first complains that studies involving same sex parents are too small to be worthwhile in the discussion.
It then presents a study with not many more people involved that relies on memories of grown children for how well they did growing up, arguing that the families were less stable than the families of married heterosexual couples used as a control. It then points to studies of same sex divorces rates in other countries as evidence that the same sex couple families will necessarily be less stable.
Of course, this ignores the fact that no adult child in the study had an opportunity to be raised by a married same sex couple, (since no legal entity in the U.S. has had legal same sex marriage long enough to have produced adult children). It also leaves out any reference to how many of the reported divorces were of couples who had children.
As a pointer to an area that may need more research, it is an interesting study.
As “argument against homosexual marriage,” it fails.
Are you sure? I thought this is one of the arguments used by gay marriage proponents - couples that aren’t legally married are generally not allowed to jointly adopt children.
That sounds like an argument for gay marriage. If only those homosexual relationships had the stability that marriage seems to have provided the heterosexual couples, the children would have been better off.
And what’s wrong with cohabitating? If you don’t give them the benefit of marrying, what else is there to do?
One of the more compelling arguments I’ve heard for gay marriage, from a conservative standpoint, was made by Andrew Sullivan a long time ago: Marriage introduces more relationship stability.
Well, that’s a relief. Looks like we’ve solved the issue here. We like relationship stability, you like equality. Whaddya say we start passing out marriage licenses like lollipops and pop that champagne cork?!
Not ever. Make speeches about, perhaps; but equality is a concept that goes against everything that conservatives have ever fought for throughout human history. Social stratification, social divisions and authoritarianism are what conservatives have always stood for, not equality.
Soon. There’s still some debating to be done, and laws to be passed.
And Der Trihs, conservatives favor equality under the law. Nothing more, nothing less. The kind of equality liberals favor by necessity requires the law to treat people differently.
What’s to debate? Repeal DOMA and federally protect same-sex couples from discriminatory marriage laws. Easy peasy, no more sleazy debates about bestiality.
Which is another way of saying that they regard the main domestic purpose of the govenrment as crushing any of the people they hate who get uppity. Being the rich and powerful and their allies, they don’t need the government in order to live in a state of privilege and wealth. they are already there. They just want the government to smash any of the downtrodden who want more, or who complain about being abused and exploited.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
The uberwealthy do not need government, true. If they didn’t have a government they could just buy protection from local toughs.
However, the merely wealthy exist because of a free society that allows people to achieve. Third World countries don’t have large groups of people making $100,000 or more a year, they have gazillionaires, poor people, and a small middle class that works for and depends on state employment.
Which is beside the point, since equality under the law is the preeminent principle of any free society. A nation that favors the poor over the rich is not actually more moral than a nation that favors the rich over the poor.
Not sure how you got “government mandate” out of repeal DOMA and federally protect same-sex couples from discrimination. That’s no mandate. That’s creating a class that cannot be discriminated against. The states regulate marriage not the Feds and I never claimed otherwise.
The writing is on the wall. If the Fed gets out of the way and do what the Fed does (or should be doing) best, which is defending the Constitution, then same-sex marriage laws will find their way into every backwoods hamlet in every state in the Union. Just as multiracial marriages have. Just as arranged marriages went the dodo, so shall same sex marriage bans.
I’m not even sure SCOTUS has to be involved. Maybe it will, but not before those states that haven’t adapted to changing times are made into the red-headed stepchildren that the rest of the country is ashamed to claim.
ETA: And as for this “useful conversation” about marriage. I don’t see it. All it seems to be good for is a whole lot of disparaging of good people who wish to have their stable relationships earn the privileges and responsibilities that any other loving couple (and some not-so-loving couples) are entitled to. And bestiality. Yeah, useful. Riiiiight.
Eh, I don’t know if a lot of Bible Belt states will be allowing gay marriage, federal protection is the best you can hope for in our lifetimes. Interracial marriage laws were invalidated by the Supreme Court.
