The costs of gay marriage

[Stoked]

There is no point in arguing with Spazz. People like him have their biased opinion drilled in their head from birth and it is set in stone. Don't waste your time trying to explain to this guy how humans SHOULD treat eachother.

Your opinion is no less biased than his, mine, Scats or One Brows. They same can be said for anyone. Stupid comment all around.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

There is no point in arguing with Spazz. People like him have their biased opinion drilled in their head from birth and it is set in stone. Don't waste your time trying to explain to this guy how humans SHOULD treat eachother.

I'm not talking about how people should treat each other. I regularly communicate with people that are homosexual and treat them with as much respect as I treat others I deal with that are not homosexual. My stance on this issue changes nothing about how I treat people. I have dealt with people that I know commit adultery over and over and I still treat those people with the respect they are due as a person and a child of God. I also have issues with what they do and speak out against that too.

Again, has nothing to do with how I treat others, has everything to do with me speaking out for what I believe and feel is right for me, my family, community, and nation. I have a right to be heard just as much as anyone else. You may not like my stance, but that's your choice.

 

[TheStormofWar]

I'm not talking about how people should treat each other. I regularly communicate with people that are homosexual and treat them with as much respect as I treat others I deal with that are not homosexual. My stance on this issue changes nothing about how I treat people. I have dealt with people that I know commit adultery over and over and I still treat those people with the respect they are due as a person and a child of God. I also have issues with what they do and speak out against that too.

Again, has nothing to do with how I treat others, has everything to do with me speaking out for what I believe and feel is right for me, my family, community, and nation. I have a right to be heard just as much as anyone else. You may not like my stance, but that's your choice.

I'll ask you not to take this the wrong way.

You absolutely have a right to feel or say how you personally feel about subjects. It's a free country and I will die to defend that right. But it's wrong, no matter how it's sliced, to deny people who love each other the right to express that love in a manner that they choose. If two consenting adults wish to marry, that is their choice regardless of how people may feel about it.

They've committed no crime that has harmed another, they pay taxes and have the same societal obligations that I do, and can be called upon at any time to defend this country as seen fit by our elected leaders.

To say that two homosexual people cannot marry because we aren't comfortable with it, while asking them to have those same obligations is wrong. Ideological reasons aside, there is nothing wrong with it from a legal or civil stand point. Our society bases their decisions a lot based on fear. Patriot Act anyone?

This really isn't a personal decision about what footwear to put on. To deny consenting adults that right to expression because we aren't comfortable with it is to say that they are second class citizens.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I'll ask you not to take this the wrong way.

You absolutely have a right to feel or say how you personally feel about subjects. It's a free country and I will die to defend that right. But it's wrong, no matter how it's sliced, to deny people who love each other the right to express that love in a manner that they choose. If two consenting adults wish to marry, that is their choice regardless of how people may feel about it.

They've committed no crime that has harmed another, they pay taxes and have the same societal obligations that I do, and can be called upon at any time to defend this country as seen fit by our elected leaders.

To say that two homosexual people cannot marry because we aren't comfortable with it, while asking them to have those same obligations is wrong. Ideological reasons aside, there is nothing wrong with it from a legal or civil stand point. Our society bases their decisions a lot based on fear. Patriot Act anyone?

This really isn't a personal decision about what footwear to put on. To deny consenting adults that right to expression because we aren't comfortable with it is to say that they are second class citizens.

And again, where do you draw the line. Is it fine for two consenting adults that are siblings to marry and express their love in whatever manner they so choose regardless of what is likely to come of that if they have children? I assume that based on what you just said, you are for marriage between siblings and parents to children as well as polygamy, polyandry, and any other form of marriage. I also assume that because you say consenting adults that animals are out?

Am I right?

 

[NUMBERICA]

Can our union survive millions of black people suddenly being able to vote?

Yeah, I went there.

 

[NUMBERICA]

JK, we're in store for 9/11 pt 2 because god.

 

[TheStormofWar]

And again, where do you draw the line. Is it fine for two consenting adults that are siblings to marry and express their love in whatever manner they so choose regardless of what is likely to come of that if they have children? I assume that based on what you just said, you are for marriage between siblings and parents to children as well as polygamy, polyandry, and any other form of marriage. I also assume that because you say consenting adults that animals are out?

Am I right?

I never had a direct issue with Polygamy or Polyandry. The same standards apply. Are the children okay? Is there issues with harm to another? By my own logic, I cannot deny that. Incestuous relationships, again, are what they are. What two folks do is their business, provided there is no compelling legal reason to forbid it, such as those standards I mentioned above.

I, personally, do not condone those things. But because I'm not comfortable with it doesn't mean that, provided the children are good and the folks are consenting, it shouldn't be legally feasible. In some states, those are actually legal to varying degrees.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Anything and everything can be equivocated.


OK, give me some concrete examples where a child raised in a household with two parents of the same sex/gender acted in a manner that caused grave damage to some segment of society?

I'm saying that I don't think such conclusive proof exists. If you think it does, let me know what fits that category for you.

There are plenty of studies to choose from that indicate that a child is better off in many ways having a mother and a father in the household. The fact that the parents in a household love each other is only part of the equation. (Marriage and the Family by the American College of Pediatricians available at https://www.acpeds.org.) (Marriage and the Family by Child Trends available at https://www.childtrends.org.) (Family Matters: Family Structure and Child Outcomes by the Alabama Policy Institute available at https://www.alabamapolicy.org.)

Having a father in the home reduces behavioral problems in boys and psychological problems in girls, enhance cognitive development, and decrease delinquency. (Sarkadi, A., Kristiansson, R., Oberklaid, F., & Bremberg, S. (2008). Fathers’ involvement and children’s developmental outcomes: A systematic review of longitudinal studies. Acta Paediatrica, 97, 153-158.)

It is also known even by pro same sex marriage people that there are few longitudinal studies on children raised by lesbians and none on children raised by homosexual men. I am assuming findings of many studies of this sort is what you are looking for in relation to "concrete evidence". There is not enough of that type of evidence to confirm one way or another if that is the sort of validation you are seeking.

If countless research has gone into and come to the conclusion that children are best off with both a father and and a mother in the home, anything else would have a negative impact from what could be.

I've said this before, and I will say it again, while I don't support it, in some cases it is better than some of the other realities we have out there. Two good parents whether heterosexual, or homosexual can be better than having an abusive parent in the home, or depending on the situation only one parent in the home. There are a lot of factors that are involved in a home and raising a child. That being said, I will continue to support and defend what I see as the best scenario for children, families, my community, and nation. Feel free to see things differently, but I will continue to voice my opinion.

I don't have time to get more into this at the moment, this will have to do as a start.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

JK, we're in store for 9/11 pt 2 because god.

No, because of you.


(see, I can be funny too. funny, isnt it. hehe)

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I never had a direct issue with Polygamy or Polyandry. The same standards apply. Are the children okay? Is there issues with harm to another? By my own logic, I cannot deny that. Incestuous relationships, again, are what they are. What two folks do is their business, provided there is no compelling legal reason to forbid it, such as those standards I mentioned above.

I, personally, do not condone those things. But because I'm not comfortable with it doesn't mean that, provided the children are good and the folks are consenting, it shouldn't be legally feasible. In some states, those are actually legal to varying degrees.

Oh, these things matter to you? I was under the impression that in your opinion nothing else mattered except that two (or more) people were allowed to show their love for each other in whatever way they wanted.

 

[Scat]

Can our union survive millions of black people suddenly being able to vote?

If they keep voting in politicians with liberal policies the black vote could very well drag the union down. See places like Detroit and Philly.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

There are plenty of studies to choose from that indicate that a child is better off in many ways having a mother and a father in the household.

Everything I've read is about biological parents, not "mother and father."

Adoptive parents seem to rate the same, whether heterosexual or homosexual, and around the same as single parents.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Marriage contracts, legal rights, and property and asset rights are the concerning factor when prohibiting plural marriage for secular reasons. Human societies over the course of history have never come to a consensus over the definition of incest save for the immediate branch, so that's an easy line, there.

Not sure where this slippery slope is.

 

[Gameface]

And again, where do you draw the line. Is it fine for two consenting adults that are siblings to marry and express their love in whatever manner they so choose regardless of what is likely to come of that if they have children? I assume that based on what you just said, you are for marriage between siblings and parents to children as well as polygamy, polyandry, and any other form of marriage. I also assume that because you say consenting adults that animals are out?

Am I right?

Do you think laws against incest are the only reason it isn't really popular?

 

[Gameface]

There are plenty of studies to choose from that indicate that a child is better off in many ways having a mother and a father in the household.

So divorce should be illegal, then? I mean it sounds like a pretty big deal since it's being used as justification to deny equal civil rights.

What should the fine for getting knocked up be, or should we build homes that single mothers are forced to live in until their child is 2 years old or something?

 

[Scat]

https://www.slate.com/articles/doub...nts_are_they_really_no_different_.single.html

Not far beneath all the debate about marriage equality remains a longstanding concern about children. Parents and advocates of all stripes wonder, and some worry, whether the children of gay and lesbian parents will turn out “different.” Different in significant ways, not just odd or unique ones. Family scholars, in particular, have paid closer attention to the specific family dynamics that might affect such children, like the number and gender of parents, their genetic relationship to the children, as well as any “household transitions” the kids have endured.

Most family scholars had, until recently, consistently (and publicly) affirmed the elevated stability and social benefits of the married, heterosexual, biological, two-parent household, when contrasted to single mothers, cohabiting couples, adoptive parents, divorced parents, and—tacitly—gay and lesbian parents. For instance, in their 1994 book Growing Up With A Single Parent, sociologists Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur wrote, “If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children’s basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal.” Other family structures were all widely perceived to fall short—even if not far short—in a variety of developmental domains such as educational achievement, behavior problems, and emotional well-being. While many of us have anecdotal evidence or personal experience to the contrary, the social science on the matter remained clear: When mom and dad stay together their children tend to be, in the weekly words of Garrison Keillor, “above average.” Stepparents and single moms got used to the chorus of voices telling them their job was a tall one. Ditto for gay and lesbian parents.

For this last group, however, things began to change in 2001 with the publication of a review article in the American Sociological Review, which noted that while there appeared to be some differences in outcomes between children in same-sex and heterosexual households, there weren’t as many as family scholars might have expected, and some differences—like a proclivity toward same-sex experimentation—need no longer be perceived as deficits in an enlightened age like ours. Since that time the conventional wisdom has been that there are “no differences” of note in the child outcomes of gay and lesbian parents. The phrase has appeared in dozens of studies, reports, depositions, and articles—and in countless email and Facebook debates—since then.

Ten years later, the discourse has actually shifted further still, suggesting that same-sex parents now appear to be more competent than heterosexual ones. A second review of research asserted that “non-heterosexual” parents, on average, enjoy significantly better relationships with their children than do heterosexual ones, and that the kids in same-sex families exhibited no differences in the domains of cognitive development, psychological adjustment, and gender identity. Elsewhere it was noted that in lesbian families there is zero evidence of sexual abuse, and the news was widely publicized. This line of argument led to yet another review article—this one on gender and parenting in 2010—with sociologists Judith Stacey and Tim Biblarz openly contending that: based strictly on the published science, one could argue that two women parent better on average than a woman and a man, or at least than a woman and man with a traditional division of labor. Lesbian coparents seem to outperform comparable married heterosexual, biological parents on several measures, even while being denied the substantial privileges of marriage.

The matter was considered settled. In fact, it was old news to psychologists by then, since in 2005 the APA had issued a brief on lesbian and gay parenting in which it was asserted, “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.”

The rapid pace at which the overall academic discourse surrounding gay and lesbian parents’ comparative competence has swung—from the wide acknowledgement of challenges to “no differences” to more capable than mom and pop families—is notable, and frankly a bit suspect. Scientific truths are seldom reversed in a decade. By comparison, studies of adoption—a common method by which many same-sex couples (but even more heterosexual ones) become parents—have repeatedly and consistently revealed important and wide-ranging differences, on average, between adopted children and biological ones. The differences have been so pervasive and consistent that adoption experts now emphasize that “acknowledgement of difference” is critical for both parents and clinicians when working with adopted children and teens. This ought to give social scientists studying gay-parenting outcomes pause—rather than lockstep unanimity. After all, many children of gay and lesbian couples are adopted.

Far more of them, however, are the children of single parents, and were born the old-fashioned way. This is one conclusion of the New Family Structures Study (NFSS), an overview article about which appears in the July issue of the journal Social Science Research. Instead of relying on small samples, or the challenges of discerning sexual orientation of household residents using census data, my colleagues and I randomly screened over 15,000 Americans aged 18-39 and asked them if their biological mother or father ever had a romantic relationship with a member of the same sex. I realize that one same-sex relationship does not a lesbian make, necessarily. But our research team was less concerned with the complicated politics of sexual identity than with same-sex behavior.

The basic results call into question simplistic notions of “no differences,” at least with the generation that is out of the house. On 25 of 40 different outcomes evaluated, the children of women who’ve had same-sex relationships fare quite differently than those in stable, biologically-intact mom-and-pop families, displaying numbers more comparable to those from heterosexual stepfamilies and single parents. Even after including controls for age, race, gender, and things like being bullied as a youth, or the gay-friendliness of the state in which they live, such respondents were more apt to report being unemployed, less healthy, more depressed, more likely to have cheated on a spouse or partner, smoke more pot, had trouble with the law, report more male and female sex partners, more sexual victimization, and were more likely to reflect negatively on their childhood family life, among other things. Why such dramatic differences? I can only speculate, since the data are not poised to pinpoint causes. One notable theme among the adult children of same-sex parents, however, is household instability, and plenty of it. The children of fathers who have had same-sex relationships fare a bit better, but they seldom reported living with their father for very long, and never with his partner for more than three years.

So why did this study come up with such different results than previous work in the field? And why should one study alter so much previous sentiment? Basically, better methods. When it comes to assessing how children of gay parents are faring, the careful methods and random sampling approach found in demography has not often been employed by scholars studying this issue, due in part—to be sure—to the challenges in locating and surveying small minorities randomly. In its place, the scholarly community has often been treated to small, nonrandom “convenience” studies of mostly white, well-educated lesbian parents, including plenty of data-collection efforts in which participants knew that they were contributing to important studies with potentially substantial political consequences, elevating the probability of something akin to the “Hawthorne Effect.” This is hardly an optimal environment for collecting unbiased data (and to their credit, many of the researchers admitted these challenges). I’m not claiming that all the previous research on this subject is bunk. But small or nonrandom studies shouldn’t be the gold standard for research, all the more so when we’re dealing with a topic so weighted with public interest and significance.

To improve upon the science and to test the theory of “no differences,” the NFSS collected data from a large, random cross-section of American young adults—apart from the census, the largest population-based dataset prepared to answer research questions about households in which mothers or fathers have had same-sex relationships—and asked them questions about their life both now and while they were growing up. When simply and briefly asked if their mother and/or father had been in a same-sex romantic relationship, 175 said it was true of their mothers and 73 said the same about their fathers—numbers far larger than has typified studies in this area. We interviewed all of these respondents (and a random sample of others) about their own lives and relationships, as well as asked them to reflect upon their family life while growing up. The differences, it turns out, were numerous. For instance, 28 percent of the adult children of women who’ve had same-sex relationships are currently unemployed, compared to 8 percent of those from married mom-and-dad families. Forty percent of the former admit to having had an affair while married or cohabiting, compared to 13 percent of the latter. Nineteen percent of the former said they were currently or recently in psychotherapy for problems connected with anxiety, depression, or relationships, compared with 8 percent of the latter. And those are just three of the 25 differences I noted.

While we know that good things tend to happen—both in the short-term and over the long run—when people provide households that last, parents in the NFSS who had same-sex relationships were the least likely to exhibit such stability. The young-adult children of women in lesbian relationships reported the highest incidence of time spent in foster care (at 14 percent of total, compared to 2 percent among the rest of the sample). Forty percent spent time living with their grandparents (compared to 10 percent of the rest); 19 percent spent time living on their own before age 18 (compared to 4 percent among everyone else). In fact, less than 2 percent of all respondents who said their mother had a same-sex relationship reported living with their mother and her partner for all 18 years of their childhood. Kudos to those gay parents, like those of Zach Wahls, who have done a remarkable job in raising their now young-adult children. I’m sure the challenges were significant and the social support often modest. There are cases in the data of people like Zach, but not very many. Stability is pivotal, but uncommon. There are limitations to this study, of course. We didn’t have as many intact lesbian and gay families as we hoped to evaluate, even though they are the face of much public deliberation about marriage equality. But it wasn’t for lack of effort.

Let me be clear: I’m not claiming that sexual orientation is at fault here, or that I know about kids who are presently being raised by gay or lesbian parents. Their parents may be forging more stable relationships in an era that is more accepting and supportive of gay and lesbian couples. But that is not the case among the previous generation, and thus social scientists, parents, and advocates would do well from here forward to avoid simply assuming the kids are all right.
This study arrives in the middle of a season that’s already exhibited plenty of high drama over same-sex marriage, whether it’s DOMA, the president’s evolving perspective, Prop 8 pinball, or finished and future state ballot initiatives. The political take-home message of the NFSS study is unclear, however. On the one hand, the instability detected in the NFSS could translate into a call for extending the relative security afforded by marriage to gay and lesbian couples. On the other hand, it may suggest that the household instability that the NFSS reveals is just too common among same-sex couples to take the social gamble of spending significant political and economic capital to esteem and support this new (but tiny) family form while Americans continue to flee the stable, two-parent biological married model, the far more common and accomplished workhorse of the American household, and still—according to the data, at least—the safest place for a kid.

 

[Gameface]

So the standard for marriage is that the union must benefit society and children?

Marriage is a privilege reserved for those who intend to use the institution in the service of the state.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

The idea of changing the legal definition of marriage to accommodate same-sex couples is so counter-intuitive for most people, I would be genuinely surprised if it happens. It would be a startling event in American politics.

I know of only one person who grew up in a same-sex household with adoptive parents. Is there anyone here who is in a same-sex relationship and raising children?

 

[Stoked]

The idea of changing the legal definition of marriage to accommodate same-sex couples is so counter-intuitive for most people, I would be genuinely surprised if it happens. It would be a startling event in American politics.

I know of only one person who grew up in a same-sex household with adoptive parents. Is there anyone here who is in a same-sex relationship and raising children?

I am not but I personally know two lesbian couples that are raising children.

 

[Hartsock]

I am not but I personally know two lesbian couples that are raising children.

My neighbors are lesbians raising 3 boys and a girl. The kids are great, well adjusted, straight ..... they are fantastic parents and neighbors.