Sorry. Your Op Ed piece does not actually rise to the status of a genuine scientific study.
And it would appear the other studies don’t either. So, all things being equal (which I don’t believe) isn’t it best, generally, that children are raised by their biological parents?
Of course there are exceptions. To change the institution of marriage into something it was never designed to be based on exceptions to the rule is nonsensical.
I accounted for that. You missed it or ignored it. To say that one biological parent is as good as two is mathematically impossible.
I am answering the question given to me: What secular interest does the state have in preserving traditional marriage. That’s why it’s my sole argument. If there’s another question at hand I would be happy to entertain it. Just because this may be the only secular argument doesn’t make it less profound. In fact, given the nature of this argument, it would seem to trump any other argument that might be proposed. Go with your best pitch, so to speak.
Your assertions, while certainly well-put and adroitly constructed, are just that: assertions. I’ve cited a researcher who is questioning the entire body of “research” that allegedly supports your position for various reasons.
Example?.
I doubt the audiens here is in much of a mood to be persuaded.
I’m not sure how you can surmise from anything I’ve written here that I would be against this.
Then we agree. Wonderful.
No what is loathsome is that you are willing to cast off children so cavalierly in the vain attempt to be socially hip. Still, that’s your prerogative. I see nothing wrong with setting up parameters that allow for the best chance of realizing the most ideal family structures.
That’s an entirely different argument and discussion.
Is it really your position that this state sponsored support would be denied a child beause he/she is living in a ssr home?Has that ever occured?
I’ll try making this bold.
Gay marriage has been in Canada for fucking years. If gay marriage harms children then you should have ample Canadian scientific evidence to demonstrate it. You do not. You have only shown unsupported, uncited speculation.
You’re right - for the benefit of children being raised by same-sex couples, we should make sure those couples have access to the various benefits of legal marriage.
Incidentally, which is more important, because I’m confused by your shifting stances:
-children raised by heterosexual parents
-children raised by their biological parents
These are not mutually inclusive groups, after all.
Really, that’s not a shifting stance. I mean biological parents. That’s what I’ve always meant and will continue to mean. I apologize for using the terms interchangeably because clearly they are not.
such as?
In all honesty your argument sounds like you should be required to produce a child first and then apply for a marriage license. If children are the sole reason for the special status granted to marriage, it seems logical that they should be necessary for the State to recognise one.
It would certainly be the most equitable means of determining who is allowed to marry and who isn’t. It removes the complaint that childless heterosexual couples are permitted to marry while childless homosexual couples are not.
I suggest you google “benefits of marriage”. It varies a bit by state, but makes for interesting reading nonetheless.
I trust, for example, that howstuffworks.com is not generally considered complicit in the international gay conspiracy.
I was hoping you would tell me which example(s) you find most egregious.
Well, let’s assume for the duration of this post that “parent” in the generic sense means “person who will take on the duties of financial responsibility to and socialization of a child”.
A. Lesbian couple gets one of the spouses pregnant. The resulting child is biologically related to one of the parents and not the other.
B. Heterosexual couple adopts a child, who is not biologically related to either parent.
Is A better than B? Worse? Why? How?
No, it sounds like the argument is that the state has seen fit to provide an environment to promote traditional marriage so that if a couple chooses to have children that decision will be made within the institution best suited for it. I think even the most strident ssm advocate will agree that your example is pretty rare.
Generally speaking, a child is best with his/her two biological parents.
Pick any denied benefit, and my question will be “why do you want to deny it?” I hadn’t thought to sort them by how ridiculously egregious the denial is.
You pick it. It’s your play.
That wasn’t one of the options presented to you, I cannot help but notice.
Any option other than that what I’ve described is less.
Okay, veteran’s benefits. Why deny the child raised by a homosexual couple financial help because his or her parents (one of whom fought for your country!) can’t get legally married?
What example, childless heterosexual couples? :dubious:
Or did you mean single parents like Biden was for several years? Cause being a single parent is also a situation that would not be described as “pretty rare.”
If marriage is about the children, what is the difference in a childfree heterosexual couple and a homosexual one?