Opponents of same-sex marriage often argue that such relationships are detrimental to children. Advocates of same-sex marriage point to a litany of studies showing that children raised by same-sex couples fare just as well, if not better, as other children. The American Psychological Association referred to 59 such studies when they announced in 2005 that children raised by same-sex couples fare just as well as children raised by opposite-sex couples.
Recently, Dr. Loren Marks from Louisiana State University examined those 59 studies (ranging from 1980 to 2005) the APA cited in support of their conclusion. He concluded that they were all fraught with methodological problems that undermined their results. According to the Science Daily report “more than three-quarters were based on small, non-representative, non-random samples that did not include any minority individuals or families; nearly half lacked a heterosexual comparison group; and few examined outcomes that extend beyond childhood such as intergenerational poverty, educational attainment, and criminality, which are a key focus of studies on children of divorce, remarriage, and cohabitation.”[1] Dr. Marks is careful to point out that this does not mean children raised by same-sex couples do, in fact, fare worse than other children: “The jury is still out on whether being raised by same-sex parents disadvantages children, however, the available data on which the APA draws its conclusions, derived primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalized claim either way.”[2]
Texas university professor of sociology Mark Regnerus disagrees that the jury is still out. He has found positive evidence that children raised by same-sex couples fare worse than other children. Using data from the New Family Structures Study (NFSS), Regnerus compared “how children raised in eight different family structures fared on 40 social, emotional, and relationship outcomes.”[3] Of the 2,988 children in the NFSS[4], he found that “children of mothers who have had same-sex relationships were significantly different as young adults on 25 of the 40 (63%) outcome measures, compared with those who spent their entire childhood with both their married, biological parents. For example, they reported significantly lower levels of income, more receipt of public welfare, lower levels of employment, poorer mental and physical health, poorer relationship quality with their current partner, and higher levels of smoking and criminality.”[5] According to Regnerus, “The most significant story in this study is arguably that children appear most apt to succeed well as adults when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day.”[6]
Professor Cynthia Osborne from the University of Texas at Austin cautions against rushing to judgment. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation. She notes that “children of lesbian mothers might have lived in many different family structures and it is impossible to isolate the effects of living with a lesbian mother from experiencing divorce, remarriage, or living with a single parent. Or, it is quite possible, that the effect derives entirely from the stigma attached to such relationships and to the legal prohibitions that prevent same-sex couples from entering and maintaining ‘normal relationships’.”[7]
Perhaps. One thing is certain: There are no good studies demonstrating that children raised by same-sex couples fare just as good as children raised by opposite-sex couples, and at least one good study that may provide good evidence for concluding that the two parenting environments are not equitable.
[1]“New Studies Challenge Established Views About Development of Children Raised by Gay or Lesbian Parents”; available from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120610151302.htm; Internet; accessed June 10, 2012.
[2]“New Studies Challenge Established Views About Development of Children Raised by Gay or Lesbian Parents”; available from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120610151302.htm; Internet; accessed June 10, 2012.
[3]“New Studies Challenge Established Views About Development of Children Raised by Gay or Lesbian Parents”; available from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120610151302.htm; Internet; accessed June 10, 2012.
[4]According to the Washington Times, this number included 175 adults who had been raised by lesbian mothers and 73 adults who had been raised by gay fathers. See http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/10/study-children-fare-better-traditional-mom-dad-fam/?page=1.
[5]“New Studies Challenge Established Views About Development of Children Raised by Gay or Lesbian Parents”; available from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120610151302.htm; Internet; accessed June 10, 2012.
[6]“New Studies Challenge Established Views About Development of Children Raised by Gay or Lesbian Parents”; available from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120610151302.htm; Internet; accessed June 10, 2012.
[7]“New Studies Challenge Established Views About Development of Children Raised by Gay or Lesbian Parents”; available from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120610151302.htm; Internet; accessed June 10, 2012.
Thinking to Believe 
July 5, 2012 at 12:22 pm
And why do you imagine that might be?
Because gay people suffer significant bullying and prejudice because of a God-given characteristic, which does no harm to anyone. Bigots dismiss us, harass us, assault us.
The answer, paradoxically, is equal marriage. Once society unequivocally condemns the bigots rather than the victims, outcomes will not be different.
LikeLike
July 5, 2012 at 5:06 pm
The American Psychological Association state that “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.” I’ve no reason to doubt Loren Marks when he says that some of the studies are biased or based on small samples…but how does that contradict the APA’s statement?
Also the relatively low number of samples and the generally skewed sampling toward certain homosexual demographics are to be expected, since there are relatively few same-sex couples with kids. And the tests that use single mothers as comparisons aren’t flawed–after all, if they have the right to raise kids, they can be used as a “worst case” comparison.
But if it turns out most of the studies are weak, then there should be more, better ones. In the meantime, what do you suggest? Not letting same-sex couples be parents? That would be cruel and unusual punishment.
LikeLike
July 6, 2012 at 4:58 am
Thanks for this post! Very interesting to read.
Many times people think that if society removes a restriction on something, then things get better. It’s even more true when discussing gay unions. Homosexuals often say, “Well, if homosexuals were able to get married, their mental health, etc. would improve because the stigma would be removed.” But look at countries where gay marriage is allowed. What does the evidence show? As one commentator said, “Allowing gay marriage changes marriage more than it change gays.”
Here’s a link for the consideration of anyone reading these comments:
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/getting-the-facts-same-sex-marriage/
Joshua
LikeLike
July 6, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Derek, what about Regnerus’ study? That was based on a huge sampling and longitudinal information, and it appears to have avoided most of the pitfalls associated with the studies purporting to show that kids raised by same-sex parents fare just as well as other kids. And he found that kids raised by same-sex parents (notably lesbians) fared worse across a range of measurements. This study is better than what the APA had to go on, and it post-dates the APAs evaluation. Frankly, I don’t think the APA cares much for the evidence anyway. Their decision to take same-sex attraction off of their list of mental issues had everything to do with politics and nothing to do with data, and I have no reason to believe that their current position on same-sex parenting is any less dependent on political correctness and more dependent on actual data.
Jason
LikeLike
July 7, 2012 at 6:48 pm
I can’t speak to the study, since I’m not familiar with it…but I wonder how it could make much of a difference as to the validity of gay marriage. Atheists tend to have fewer divorces than Christians…so should we prohibit Christians from marrying? What about alcoholics? Or people with criminal records? Or poor people? There are plenty of demographics that have less than ideal marriage statistics…but would we be justified in preventing all but the most stellar from getting married?
Psychologists almost universally agree that there is no scientifically justifiable reason to consider same-sex attraction to be a mental disorder, thus it is not politics but science that warrants the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental disorders.
What should make you suspicious is that virtually all those who object to gay marriage have religious views that coincide with that objection. That should be a red flag that it’s not the psychologists who are politically motivated, but the religious. People who grow up around gay people discover that they are no different than the rest of us, and they deserve the same respect as anyone else. It’s really only those who have been kept isolated from gays and who have been religiously indoctrinated against homosexuality that have a problem with gay marriage.
LikeLike
July 9, 2012 at 1:03 am
Is it the homosexuality that directly causes these problems, or is it lack of having one male and one female parent?
Perhaps the problems are caused because the children in question, when they needed a mom, only had two dads, or if when they needed a father, they only had two moms?
Children of single parents, or of divorced parents also have many problems. One of the main factors is the loss of the opposite gender parent. It just seems that at any given stage of development, there are days, even epochs when sons need their mom more, then later, need their dad more, and vice-versa for daughters.
To not have that may be another explanation, as opposed to merely stating the sexuality preference of the parents involved is the direct cause (as this quote from the article/study below illustrates):
“The most significant story in this study is arguably that children appear most apt to succeed well as adults when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day.”
At best then, the sexuality of the parents in question may only be an indirect cause of the studied problems, since by virtue of a homosexual partnership, one or the other gender is automatically missing.
LikeLike
July 13, 2012 at 5:32 pm
Derek,
I would grant that same-sex attraction is not a mental or biological “illness” in the normal sense of the word, but I think it should be obvious that something is amiss about same-sex attraction and homosex. If one’s sexual organs are designed to function with one gender, and yet their sexual desires are directed toward a different gender, and they are psychologically incapable of using their sex organs for their intended purpose, it is reasonable to conclude that something is awry. When one’s desires do not match the hardware afforded them by nature the problem is not with the hardware, but with the desires.
If homosexuality is a moral issue, we shouldn’t be surprised if religious traditions and those who follow them have typically opposed homosexuality since religious traditions focus on moral matters. On the other hand, secularists and non-theists tend to follow a libertarian approach to moral matters. But it’s not true that it’s only the religious who are opposed to homosexuality. Many religious people support it, and many non-religious do not support it. Indeed, if homosexuals had to rely on the non-religious to enact gay-friendly legislation, none would ever get passed. So you can’t pretend that it’s a black and white issue. See my blog post here for more details: https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/american-catholics-are-the-biggest-supporters-of-same-sex-marriage/.
As for your claim that people discriminate against homosexuals because they don’t know any homosexuals, I have several things to say. First, you need to distinguish between those who have a moral opposition to homosexual behavior and those who hate homosexuals. One can be morally opposed to X without hating those who do X. Think, for example, of drug addicts. People can hate what they do because their behavior is self-destructive, and yet love the drug addict personally. Secondly, this is not a matter of whether we accord respect to people with same-sex attraction or who engage in homosexual acts. As a Christian, I respect all people because they are all made in the image of God, and because we are all sinners in need of a Savior. But that doesn’t mean I have to support their behavior. Respect and approval are not the same thing. Thirdly, again speaking for myself, I have been anything but isoltated from gays. Three of my past roommates were gay, one of my close friends has same-sex attraction, and I work in San Francisco for goodness sake! My opposition to homosexuality is not because I don’t know homosexuals, or because I don’t like homosexuals as persons, but because homosexual behavior is unnatural and self-destructive, and because the Creator of mankind does not approve of homosexual behavior seeing that it violates His design for humans and human sexuality. The picture of the world you want to paint is too simplistic. While it may accurately describe some, it does not describe all.
Jason
LikeLike
July 13, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Aaron,
That’s a good question. I would tend to think it’s the lack of the opposite sex since we see similar problems in children raised by single parents.
Jason
LikeLike
July 14, 2012 at 4:20 pm
If your argument were valid, then masturbation would be something that is “amiss,” rather than a healthy outlet. Sex in humans performs multiple functions, from improving pair bonds to reducing stress. Reproduction is only one aspect. Granted, it’s a critical one, but it is also becoming a less relevant and less necessary due to technological improvements and population sizes.
Also, there are valid arguments that homosexuality may actually be biologically ADAPTIVE, as mentioned here:
http://www.adherents.com/misc/paradoxEvolution.html
and
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/evolution-animals-and-gay-behavior/
Just as altruism SUPERFICIALLY makes no sense from a biological perspective, but in-depth studies reveal it can actually be highly adaptive, homosexuality may be just as adaptive. Its consistent and steady prevalence in numerous animal species implies that there must be adaptive components. Indeed, we find homosexuals are often better at caring for kids, and they can make better allies by not competing for mates.
No, I don’t. To have a valid moral objection to a behavior, that behavior must be shown to be damaging to individuals or society. But homosexuals have been a significant percentage of human society for as long as humans have been around, and there’s no evidence they cause any harm. Thus, moral objections to gays are no different than moral objections to skin color, age, sex, social status, etc.–they’re nothing more than bigotry cloaked in self-righteousness.
LikeLike
July 17, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Derek,
How would my argument implicate masturbation? Does masturbation entail the psychological incapability of using one’s sex organs for their intended purpose? No.
I agree that there are more purposes for sex than just procreation, but that misses the point. We can discover the purpose for our sex organs by looking at what they do. There would be no need for our sex organs apart from reproduction, and thus our sex organs are teleologically oriented towards the opposite gender, not the same gender. When we use our sex organs with the same gender, we are using them in a way they were not intended to be used. It is unnatural in the clearest sense of the word.
I don’t agree that homosexual behavior in the animal world is akin to human homosexuality, but aside from that, who cares that it persists. Why would that make it adaptive? Diseases persist too. Does that make them adaptive? Psychological diseases persist? Are they adaptive? You are guilty of committing the is-ought fallacy.
No you don’t have to distinguish between between those who have a moral opposition to homosexual behavior and those who hate homosexuals? Why not?
And why must a behavior be shown to have a damaging effect in order for it to be considered wrong? Is it wrong to have sex with dead people? Who is hurt by that? And yet most would consider it to be wrong. A consequentialist view of morality is a deficient view of morality.
Homosexuality doesn’t cause any harm? Then what about the increased illnesses due to same-sex activity? What about the increased rates of substance abuse and mental illnesses among homosexuals? It is not without harm. It affects both the homosexuals involved and society at large.
Jason
LikeLike
July 19, 2012 at 9:58 am
Neither does homosexuality. MANY gays marry members of the opposite sex in order to have kids. So that argument goes out the window.
Again, when we use our genitals for masturbation, we’re using them as they weren’t “designed” to be used. So what? A whole host of other physiological benefits are tied to the NON-reproductive purpose of genitals that to say there’s no need for our sex organs apart from reproduction is simply false.
But even if it weren’t false…why should that prevent people from marrying for love, rather than for children? The definition of marriage has changed throughout history, so why should it stop now?
Well, since virtually all psychologists who actually study homosexual behavior agree that it’s the same mechanism that is found in the animal world, I’d have to disagree with you.
Yes diseases persist…and YES, they are adaptive. Not only do diseases constantly evolve (it’s why we constantly need new types of antibiotics), but our immune system evolves as well. And the gene for sickle cell anemia is adaptive because it confers resistance to malaria. Psychological diseases are often adaptive too, or they are an inevitable consequence of adaptive traits. Intelligence is adaptive, but breed highly intelligent people and there appears to be a marked increase in the odds for neurological issues, such as autism.
But again, so what? Do we prevent blacks or overly intelligent people from reproducing? Of course not.
Because there is no justifiable moral basis for opposition to homosexuality. The only real objections are RELIGIOUS. But if religious objections to homosexuality were valid reasons for government to ban gay marriage, then religious objections to eliminating slavery were valid reasons for government to allow slavery. Morality becomes more and more moral over time as society considers the cost/benefit to individuals and society of previous moral standards. That’s why we don’t follow God’s laws concerning slavery, torture, child abuse, religious intolerance, etc.
If you eliminate the damaging effect to individuals and society as a basis for judging morality, then what standard is there? How else can you measure whether morality is “good”?
Dead people are nearly always the remains of someone’s loved one, and thus having sex with them is as offensive to their loved ones as any other violation of people or property we value. And naturally, people project that value system toward all dead bodies. It also helps that there are evolutionarily selective reasons for people to consider necrophilia to be disgusting, for reasons other than moral ones (just as it’s not immoral to eat feces, but it is disgusting and evolutionarily maladaptive).
Increased illnesses due to same-sex activity are primarily due to the hygienic issues of practicing anal sex, which straight couples can and do perform as well. Practicing safe sex can solve that problem. Also, by THAT standard, then lesbian couples should be the only ones allowed to marry, since they tend to have FEWER diseases than straight couples.
And increased rates of substance abuse and mental illness are easily explained by social ostracism. If YOU were told your sexual preference was wrong and disgusting, that you’re a pervert who deserves to be killed and doesn’t deserve the same rights as “normal” people, YOU would be at higher risk of substance abuse and mental illness too. Furthermore, since when has substance abuse or mental illness been legally justifiable reasons to prevent a couple from getting married?
In any event, preventing gays from marrying doesn’t REDUCE the number of gay people, it only marginalizes a significant portion of our population…for what? There’s simply no valid reason. Every justification you make to deny gays the right to marry can easily be countered with other consequences you clearly don’t intend based on that SAME justification. Gays can’t reproduce! Well neither can the infertile. Gays have higher risk of disease! But lesbians don’t, so should only they be allowed to marry? Gays have more psychological problems! Yeah, due to people who treat them like you do.
It’s time for Christians to give up on their attempts to marginalize gays, just as they gave up their justifications for slavery, female subjugation, child abuse, etc. The Bible is not a reasonable source for our morality.
LikeLike
July 25, 2012 at 4:11 pm
Derek,
I agree. My argument would only apply to the exclusively homosexual, not to the bisexual.
Many natural law thinkers would actually agree that masturbation is wrong for that very reason. All this would show is that both masturbation and homosex are both wrong. As for psychological benefits, benefits are not the same thing as purposes. The purpose of food is nutrition, but one of the benefits of food is pleasure. It would be foolish to say that because food brings pleasure, it’s false to say food if for nutrition. Likewise, it’s false to say that because non-reproductive uses of our sex organs can bring us psychological benefits, that it’s not true that the purpose of our sex organs is for reproduction. And just because we can use X for more than it was intended for—some Y—does not mean that it was not intended for Y. The fact that I can use a computer as a paperweight does not mean that it is not intended to be used for personal computing.
You seem to be confusing relationships and marriage. One can have a relationship without it being legally recognized as a marriage. So if someone wants to be in a life-long relationship with someone for the sake of love, fine. But that’s not why the government is involved in regulating certain relationships that we call “marriage.”
As for the changing definition of marriage, that is bunk. The definition has always been one man and one women (even in polygamous relationships, since it is viewed as multiple marriages rather than a single marriage involving, say, 5 people). What has changed over time and between cultures is the role that each sex plays in the marriage. But the reason for the institution, and the gender of the participants, have always been the same. That is the core of what marriage is. The stuff that has changed is the peripheral stuff which is not essential to marriage.
Name one. And don’t just cite authorities. Tell me how it’s the same. It’s not. A dog will hump a chair when it’s in heat. When it humps another male dog, it’s not doing so because it has a psychological desire to do so, but because it has a biological desire to “get off.” It doesn’t care if it’s a female dog, another male dog, or your leg. That is nothing like human homosexuality.
So you say. There are non-religious reasons to be opposed to homosexual behavior. Natural law, health, and evolution are all non-religious reasons to oppose it. You may like to reduce all objections to homosexuality to a religious level so that you can summarily dismiss them without argument, but that won’t work.
One does not need to believe that homosexuality is immoral to be opposed to same-sex marriage. One can think that homosexuality is morally benign or morally good and still oppose same-sex marriage on the grounds of good social policy. All one needs to do is look at the purpose for civil marriage and recognize that same-sex couples do not qualify for the institution anymore than a man qualifies for a hysterectomy. Just wanting one doesn’t mean one qualifies for it. If the reason governments involve themselves in regulating marriage are related to matters that same-sex relationships are incapable of fulfilling, then there is no reason for the government to do so.
Jason
LikeLike
July 27, 2012 at 10:41 am
Really? I’ve never encountered ANYONE apart from the religious who think masturbation is wrong, and that includes psychologists and ethologists. I have run into a few non-religious people who think homosexuality is wrong, but their objections are inevitably no more sophisticated than they think it’s “icky.”
So what? Our voices aren’t purposed for singing, but does that mean we shouldn’t accommodate singers as readily as talkers?
No, you think the government’s involvement in marriage revolves around reproduction, when clearly it doesn’t. The government is supposed to be “of the people, by the people, for the people”; we don’t exist for it, but the other way around. The purpose of government is to enact the will of the people and to defend basic rights. THAT is why there is NEVER any question whether infertile couples can marry. Nobody even gives a disapproving glance. Even traditional wedding vows mention NOTHING about reproduction. That’s because marriage no longer means “property possession of a woman for reproductive purposes,” but a desire to socially codify a loving relationship. Or other reasons. Marriage means different things to different people, but from the government’s perspective, it has NOTHING to do with reproduction. All that matters is that two people want to get hitched. Period.
This claim is PROVABLY false. People in India, Ireland, Japan, Australia, Korea, Denmark, South Africa, Iceland, Canada, Norway, Argentina, Netherlands, Sweden, Portugal, Spain, Belgium and even the US (native Americans) can and have married members of the same sex, animals and even gods. And polygamous marriages are NOT universally “multiple marriages,” as evidenced by single men marrying multiple women in a single ceremony in parts of Africa, for instance.
You’re hanging on to one minor technicality that has never actually been true. The definition of marriage has changed drastically throughout history and for different cultures. It used to be all about property rights over women, it used to be something only for land-owning men, it used to be only for white people, it used to only be for same-race couples…until it the meaning of marriage changed. It’s changed before, it’s changing now, and it’ll change again.
LOL! That’s because dogs humping chairs has NOTHING to do with sexual preference. The closest human analog is masturbation. For an animal to be homosexual, it must have a clear innate sexual preference for its own sex. Surely you know that!
There are many hundreds of documented examples of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. For example:
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
Since humans are animals and animals of many species exhibit homosexuality, the default assumption should be that humans and other animals share similar biological mechanisms that result in homosexuality. It would be up to you to provide evidence that human homosexuality is somehow fundamentally DIFFERENT from that of other animals.
Those aren’t REASONS to morally oppose homosexual behavior, they’re simply prejudicial OPINIONS. There are plenty of things humans do that violate “natural law” (choosing not to reproduce, oral sex, any life-risking daredevil activity), “health” (eat restaurant food, kissing, go to work with a cold) and “evolution” (allowing people with diabetes, fair skin or bad vision to reproduce), but would it be MORAL to disallow people who violate those laws from marrying? Of course not.
Again, there is NOTHING in ANY government policy regarding marriage acceptability that has ANYTHING to do with reproductive capability. Earlier you dismissed preventing infertile couples from reproducing on the basis of it being “too difficult” to verify fertility. But that’s bunk. The government could EASILY implement some basic procedures to do so IF IT WANTED TO. Like basic fertility tests (some states even now still require blood tests) or even a simple signed statement that one is to the best of his/her knowledge fertile and will make every effort to reproduce. But it’ll NEVER happen because reproduction has NOTHING to do with government interest in regulating marriage. In today’s society it’s all about LEGAL RIGHTS, such as inheritance, visitation rights, power of decision, and so on.
The quality of arguments you’ve used to justify not extending marriage rights to same-sex couples is really no different than the spurious arguments used to justify not allowing mixed-race couples to marry. Just like them, you point to weak evidence (like children of mixed-race couples have a harder time than children of same-race couples) to support your stance, while ignoring contradictory evidence (like the reason children of mixed-race couples have a harder time is because of bigotry, not there being something inherently wrong with mixed races) and ignoring moral considerations (adults who love one another should have the right to marry, regardless of skin color).
I think you are letting religious dogma prejudice your thinking, rather than thinking about what’s the moral thing to do. There are millions of same-sex couples that WANT to marry as a codified expression of their love and as an integration into society. Does gay marriage hurt heterosexual marriages? No. Has gay marriage caused social chaos in any of the countries where it’s legal? No. So is there any truly rational reason why gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry? No.
LikeLike
July 27, 2012 at 8:16 pm
Jason and Derek, a similar debate is happening @ Wintery Knight with Katie there taking the rational position. I adumbrate there my covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism, noting that grounding morality in an authority is not grounding it whislt to ground it in our-intersubjectivism does so and I discount theistic morality in general and the Yahweh one in particular. adumbrate that what Shelley maintains about God as superfluous as any kind of explanation applies also to Him as the ethical law giver!
Derek, see you there perhaps!
LikeLike
July 27, 2012 at 8:19 pm
whilst to ground
LikeLike
July 30, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Derek,
I don’t see how your observation that only religious people oppose masturbation to have any relevance to what we’ve been talking about. I was talking about natural law, and how it demonstrates that homosexuality is unnatural. So you cite masturbation, saying that this would implicate masturbation as well (apparently thinking that this should make people realize that homosexuality must not be wrong either). So I challenged you by pointing out that some natural law thinkers would also agree that masturbation is wrong too for the same reason. So what is the point of pointing out that only religious thinkers think this? For one, I don’t know how you know this to be true. But assuming it is, it wouldn’t be surprising since the non-religious are so intellectually smug that they have all but abandoned natural law theory. It’s a matter of ignorance.
Our voices aren’t for singing? Seriously? You think that singing is an unnatural use of our voices? That’s absurd. That’s like saying it is unnatural for our fingers to play the guitar. Using our fingers to play the guitar is just one example of using our fingers for their intended purpose, and so is singing. Singing communicates, which is the purpose of our voices.
No, I think the government’s interest in marriage is due to children. If humans reproduced asexually, there would be no need for the government to be in the marriage business. And that is why the government doesn’t regulate and license friendships. They don’t have an interest in doing so.
Show me sources for the claims you are making about the history of marriage.
Honestly, there is so much of what you say that I disagree with that I feel overwhelmed and do not have the time or energy to respond. So if there was any point I have not responded to, and you were really looking forward to hearing what I had to say, let me know and I’ll address it.
Jason
LikeLike
July 31, 2012 at 4:51 pm
You said many “natural law” thinkers say masturbation and homosexuality are wrong, thus my response. You haven’t specified what a “natural law” thinker is, although my own experience shows that the only significant objection to both masturbation and homosexuality are by the religious.
And I should point out that there is nothing “unnatural” about either masturbation or homosexuality. I’ve pointed out in earlier posts that both apparently have their places in helping both individuals and society.
Singing is a preadapted CONSEQUENCE of speech, but it is not itself any more “natural” or “unnatural” than masturbation. In other words, singing is to speech what masturbation is to sex. For another analogy, you could argue that kissing is unnatural (especially since some cultures don’t even lip kiss) because mouths exist primarily for consuming food. But so what? Mouths preadapted us to kissing, which has its own benefits (in pair-bonding, expressing affection, chemically determining genetic suitability of a mate, etc.)
You seem obsessed with using body parts for a single prescribed purpose. But reality is more complex than that. Body parts can be used for purposes OTHER than their main function…and there’s nothing unnatural about that. Especially in humans, a species that excels in adapting tools for different purposes.
Again, NOWHERE is there ANY law that requires married couples to reproduce. If government’s main interest in marriage were about children, then OF COURSE there would be laws stipulating that married couples must be fertile and have an intent to reproduce, and having children out of wedlock would surely be illegal.
All you have to do is look at what marriage laws DO cover in order to see what government’s main interest is: inheritance, death benefits, visitation rights, etc. Yes, that includes child custody rights, but that’s only one of many benefits of legalizing marriage and it isn’t even about encouraging reproduction, but about who gets what. And THAT is government’s main interest: smoothing out who gets what rights/benefits/custody. That’s it.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200505/marriage-history
http://theweek.com/article/index/228541/how-marriage-has-changed-over-centuries
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/opinion/article/Traditional-marriage-has-changed-a-lot-1196563.php
Click to access historyofchange.PDF
And if you want some examples of humans marrying things other than humans:
http://positiveminded.hubpages.com/hub/Animal-human-Marriages
http://www.ranker.com/list/13-people-who-married-inanimate-objects/jude-newsome
I certainly understand that you disagree with much of what I have to say. But I DO have evidence to support my claims, as you can see in my posts. I get the feeling you have had a very insular upbringing, without much exposure to other cultures and beliefs. I grew up all over the world and have seen things most Americans and even Westerners have no idea exist. Thus, to me claims like “marriage has always been between a man and a woman” is patently false–I’ve SEEN exceptions to this, and even a little research into the subject reveals many such examples throughout history.
The bottom line: Marriage today means different things to different people, and having children is only one part of it…and not even any part of it for some couples. Government’s interest in it is to codify the legalities of inheritance, custody, etc. Thus, when a same-sex couple wishes to marry, it’s not about upsetting Christians or changing government’s role in marriage…it’s about forming an official social bond, giving visitation rights when one is hospitalized, determining who inherits property and kids, etc. Can’t you see that a gay couple could have as much interest in those rights as any straight couple? Denying them such rights is no different than denying blacks the right to sit at the front of the bus.
LikeLike
January 14, 2014 at 11:31 pm
[…] Studies purporting to show that children raised by same-sex parents fare just as well as children ra… […]
LikeLike
August 10, 2015 at 9:10 pm
[…] are these studies plagued with methodological problems and contradicted by the most comprehensive analysis of the data, but this defies common sense as well. As Katy […]
LikeLike