Because both are just fine with polygamy, therefor do not define marriage as 1 man, 1 woman. (But rather ‘1 man and as many women as he can afford to keep’.)
Because neither Muslim nor Hindu “traditional” definitions of marriage equal his.
It’s a fair question. But, like a dick, let me answer your question with a question: what if studies showed that kids raised by gay married couples had slightly better outcomes than kids raised by straight married couples? Would we say, welp, time to pack it in: opposite-sex couples should get second-class civil-union status, and only teh geys should be able to get married, because, hey, it’s only fair, right?
Excellent question indeed. Yes, if the data actually showed a problem - which it does not - then I’d consider it a valid concern worthy of further research and public health awareness.
Then we’d be able to design interventions that might help alleviate some of the issues, based on what the actual problem is. If the son of two mothers needed a male role model in his life, perhaps we could increase the budget for Big Brother programs to get him that role model outside the family. Or we could raise awareness and encourage Uncles to take a greater role in their nephews’ lives. If the daughter of two dads needed a female ear to talk about periods and pregnancy prevention with, we could have school or community social workers or nurses trained and able to make contact with her to offer support and education, and make sure our sex ed classes in school are *comprehensive *sex ed classes (which they should be anyway, based on data we do have about comprehensive sex ed vs. abstinence only education).
It should not be about forbidding or breaking up families, but providing the kind of support that they need to raise the odds of them being successful.
Say what? When my daughter menstruated for the first time, she was living with her mom, but she called me. Most of her friends were a few years older than her, so she was not surprised. We had already discussed most of the basics, and she always came to me with medical/science questions.
After we talked for some time I suggested she inform her mom, since she would be the one purchasing feminine hygiene products. I also pointed out that her mom might be happier to think she was my daughter’s confidante.
I believe those were just hypothetical situations following upon the hypothetical finding that same-sex parenting did produce a statistically significant decrease in a child’s future success.
The actual remedies would, of course, depend on what factors are found to be the proximate causes of the shortfall.
[Nitpick] Islam actually limits a man to four wives maximum.
So far as I know, there is no upper limit for Hinduism.
And Fundamentalist Mormons suggest a minimum of three wives per man for maximum post-life happiness. Needless to say, this presents significant demographic problems for their communities as they have not yet discovered a way to magically produce three infant girls for every infant boy born. Their solution seems to be abandoning unwanted/excess young males beside the road. In some cases literally. They justify the multiple wives thing based on the Bible, the very book the OP seems to consult to justify the 1 man 1 woman model… which shows just how useless the Bible is for deciding these matters. [/Nitpick]
Exactly. I thought the repeated use of the word “If” made that clear.
First step in public health is to determine if there’s a problem. Second step is to narrow down exactly what the problem is. Only then do we move on to researching the effects and side effects of various interventions to fix the problem. So far, and probably going ahead, research into same sex parenting outcomes has stopped with the first step, because there doesn’t appear to be a problem.
My sister the lesbian raised eight daughters–a genetic one, three by her first partner, two by her current wife (genetic father was our brother) and two their took in along with their dying mother. I have no children, and I ain’t going to have any.
But I can get legally married and she shouldn’t be able to?
Hinduism is decidely not just fine with polygamy.
I was going to say, when did this occur? Did I miss the memo?
Just because some rich kings back in the day (many of whom were Muslim) had a bunch of wives doesn’t mean Hinduism is OK with polygamy. On the contrary, our weddings don’t even bind you for one lifetime - they bind you for seven. The kings doing it just mean rich men can do whatever they want, just like the rest of time.
We do have a case of polyandry, when Draupadi married five brothers, but that was a big effing deal.
The data would need to show that children of same-sex couples were pretty far out of the normal range before it would justify anything like limiting adoption. After all, we tolerate people having children when they’re in groups known to be more likely to have significantly poorer results, such as when the parents are in poverty.
Data that showed only a slight increase, but still within the normal range for heterosexual couples, certainly wouldn’t justify any public policy (and of course the data doesn’t show anything like that).
The front page of the Bergen County, New Jersey paper has a story on the conviction of a military (straight) couple in the severe abuse of their adopted children. Cite. Warning: It’s some nasty reading. There have been other cases in New Jersey of straight couples abusing adopted and foster children.
But do we say that straight couples shouldn’t be allowed to adopt or foster? No.
Naw, it just feels that way. 
And of course a spectacular case of polyamory in Krishna and the milkmaids, but again that’s a tad atypical.
I agree. We don’t take kids out of less-than-optimal situations willy-nilly, or by class of parent, but only after considering the individual situation and best interests of the child. We do provide extra *support *to families in poverty, though. We have SNAP and TANF and Head Start and Free and Reduced Price Lunch Program and Earned Income Credit and subsidized before/after school care and free immunizations and health screenings and Medicaid…
IF children of gay parents needed support (and no, in reality, they don’t) we could work that out while keeping families intact.
Adoption is kind of a whole 'nother discussion. We require a lot more from adoptive parents, regardless of their gender(s) and including demonstration of financial stability, than we do from biological parents.
And, again, if studies show that children of straight parents were underperforming a bit compared to children of gay parents, how would we respond?
Then we throw out those pesky stats and go back to the Bible, of course.
Well, that seems to be the position taken by the OP. More specifically, if we’re going to refer to gay unions as “marriages”, then what should we call “proper” man/woman unions to distinguish them from those less-than-ideal gay ones? Apparently, gay marriages have ruined the utility of the word “marriage”.
To be clear, that’s not MY position. I was just catching you up on the thrust of the debate. It’s not about adult relationships, it’s about “capacity to procreate” and “the ideal household structure for hatching and raising children”. There has been no explanation of where this idea that children are hatched came from; however, sadly, that’s not even the most ridiculous notion that’s been posited.
-VM