As an afterthought that occurred after the edit window, I should not have said I’d reconsider my stance on gay marriage, but rather I’d rethink my stance on gay parenting (that is to say, I’d form a stance on gay parenting, since I have not previously bothered to do so), since marriage and parenting are not invariably linked, as other posters have pointed out.
The hypothetical circumstances that might make me rethink my support of gay marriage would have to be somewhat broader than just its presumably negative effect on childrearing.
Since you’re on record as opposing SSM, citing concerns that some 40 years in the future, there may be negative social outcomes so better play it safe and avoid such, I’ll just ask you if you are (hypothetically) prepared to give up such concerns if there are no measurably negative repercussions (to children or anything else) before 40 years have passed.
If you have already rethought your position and yielded the 40-year concerns, I cheerfully withdraw the question.
I’m going to refrain from fighting the hypothetical, and pretend that this is still an open question.
With that in mind, my answer is that if A were true I would support efforts to counteract that effect before I supported stripping same-sex couples of certain rights and privileges afforded different-sex couples. After all, I supported same-sex marriage before a lot of data on this question had been gathered.
There is probably some set of facts that, if convincingly demonstrated, would make me change my position. I’m not sure what. Probably “being gay is totally volitional” would be necessary, but certainly not sufficient – but that too, would go against what evidence there is in reality.
There is empirical evidence that people over the age of fifty tend to make bad parents due to the fact that one or both of the parents are likely to die off before the child turns 18. Should people over the age of fifty be allowed to marry?
I’ll echo Miller’s response. As far as the children of gay couples, SSM can only help them – gay couples will raise children regardless of whether SSM is legal, so formalizing their relationship can only benefit these children. As far as gay adoption, the science is in, so to speak – there’s no evidence that children of same-sex couples are worse off, on average, then those of opposite-sex couples. If this weren’t true, then I would only consider opposing gay adoption if the science suggested that their children were worse off than being raised in institutional settings (which strikes me as ludicrously unlikely).
How do children raised in African-American families fare overall against children raised in Caucasian families? Would you have had the guts to ask same question about those two groups, Construct?
I’d really want to know why. I mean, you make it sound so theoretical. I know gay parents, and they LOVE their children. The biggest problem most of them have is spoiling them. So what in the world is causing these kids to have lesser outcomes? Is it just because of people not giving them a chance?
I know everyone says gay parents can have children just as easily as anyone, and this is true, but most of the time, gay parents’ children are planned (because you do need to bring an opposite sex person else into your world at some point). Planned, and wanted - not an accident.
Have we talked about bad opposite sex parents yet? My dad was married and he seduced my mom, his student (he was a teacher) and I was born out of wedlock, unwanted by either pair. I was adopted by my aunt and uncle, who didn’t want children, and told me so, many times, to my face, along with the fact that I was their responsibility and their cross to bear.
I’d have traded all that for a pair of loving gay parents any day.
Divorce ruined the institution of marriage long before people started emptying their closets. No, we don’t have to “go out of our way” to penalize single parents, such penalties are intrinsic to our social structure.
Empirical data wouldn’t change my stance on SSM, it’s not any of the government’s business. Also, life outcomes of any child is almost entirely based on the child’s decisions. We all know good parents who raised bad children, we all know bad parents who raised good children; whatever the cause and effect, it’s not universal by any means.
No, because any evidence showing a ‘worse’ outcome from SS parenting will likely be from some cherry-picked stat that is just marginally not quite as good as from OS parenting.
For example, I would guess that being raised OS parents is better than SS because it gives the child extensive experience with dealing with both genders. The world is made up of both genders, so having less experience with one may be a hindrance when they get out into the real world. However, even if there was a difference, it would not really be important enough to deny the SS parents from being together. It’s like saying single-parenting is worse than two-parents. Yes, but so what? Every situation has pluses and minuses. The important thing is if the kid is in a loving family.
And furthermore, there are some truly awful OS parents out there. The ‘evidence’ would need to show that all SS parents are worse then the alcoholic parents who mentally and physically abuse their kids, but that’s clearly not the case.
Let’s say that academic research clearly establishes a scientific consensus that children raised in Mississippi have worse life outcomes in a number of universally accepted measures of life quality than the national average.
Would this change your position on Mississippi marriage?
Or in other words, is your opinion on Mississippi marriage based on empirical research or on some combination of law and ethics?
They certainly shouldn’t be allowed to have sex. Ick.
(But I might change my mind about that sometime between 2022 and 2028)
Do you mean that marriage is not any of the government’s business, that it is your position that marriage should not be any of the government’s business, or that empirical data is not any of the government’s business? I definitely think empiricism has a place in policymaking (and that, as long as people are going to pair off, the state should acknowledge this fact)
I support gay marriage. This would not change my mind because of several reasons:
I don’t care about kids. There’s a lot of laws I would change without regard to whether kids suffer or benefit from it. It matters more to me whether to law is fair to the person or group it is meant to affect. Side effects on children are irrelevant to me.
Its worth lowering their quality of life to improve it for gays
Civil rights is important than a side effect of that. If more people having civil rights leads to a lower quality of life, we should still have civil rights. Maybe our quality of life is too high
I separate children from the marriage issue. Does it matter to me if vehicle gas tank size regulations negatively affect 1950’s cartoon ratings? If its right to regulate vehicle gas tanks, then the old cartoon industry will simply have to adjust
I never thought the helping kids issue was an especially relevant part of the gay marriage debate, but I used it because I know tugging on emotional heartstrings is useful and sometimes effective. Now that gay marriage is legal, I don’t need to pretend kids matter anymore
No. Adoption and IVF for same-sex couples, yes. Being married doesn’t automatically mean you’re going to have kids, especially when you and your partner are physically incapable of having kids without outside assistance.