Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
And from a dissenting opinion on Bostic v. Schaefer, we see that procreation is what the SCOTUS has recognized:
And even today in Deboer v. Snyder:
So in summary, your support for your notion that "the prevailing argument [from the first 200 years of this country] in favor of licensing marriage was that marriage was between a man and woman to foster the best environment for a child to be born and raised" is based on two statements made by judges who the rest of the judicial system have said are wrong...?
And most have resoundingly concluded that the optimal environment to birth and raise a child is when the mother and father remain together.
This area of social science is in its infancy, so claiming that "gender and/or sexuality of the parents is not a relevant factor in childhood outcomes and produces no difference is improper of the scientific institutions.
Social science is not 'in it's infancy'. We don't need to wait for more studies: We have plenty of evidence - same sex parents do just as well, usually better*, as opposite sex parents.
* Because they are often adoptive parents, and adoptive parents do better.
“…it would be foolish for anyone with truly antifeminist sensibilities to become a sociologist,” due to how liberal that field has become.
Homosexuals simply can not reproduce together, and therefore, there is no reason for the state to take an interest in assuring that a conducive environment exists for them to take such responsibility.
Which is odd, considering "marriage" is not listed in your statement above. Let me recite what you said:
So, are you saying that one NEEDS a piece of paper from the government in order to have an "affectionate, loving, and committed relationship"?
Which flies in the face of the ASA brief you positively cited earlier:
So, are there similar psychological effects or are they different?
Social science studies also confirm that children of same-sex parents are just as psychologically healthy as children of different-sex parents. According to a nationally representative study, adolescents raised by
same-sex and different-sex parents report similar levels of self-esteem and depression.
same-sex and different-sex parents report similar levels of self-esteem and depression.
So, are there similar psychological effects or are they different?
However, there is good reason to think that allowing same-sex marriage would mean the children being raised by same-sex couples would do even better, because marriage is known to be helpful at strengthening relationships. Marriage is well-known to boost mental health in straight couples and strengthen relationships, and preliminary studies on same-sex marriages have shown exactly the same type of effects.
Same sex couples on average appear to have happier relationships than straight couples. This is hardly surprising, as research on heterosexual couples has consistently shown that a greater amount of similarity between the partners results in a better relationship on average (having more in common leads to greater empathy and thus better resolution of disputes as each person can understand better 'where the other person is coming from'). If the quality of the relationship among same-sex couples is better on average than opposite-sex couples, then children being raised by them ought to do better on average because children do better when the quality of the parental relationship is better.
So although children raised by same-sex couples are currently doing the same or better than children raised by heterosexual couples, they would do even better still if same-sex marriage was allowed. Married, same-sex, adoptive parents, represent a particularly ideal environment for raising children from the point of view of best outcomes for the children, and would significantly outperform standard biological parents on average.
For most of the history of this country, the government only cared about marriage because of the issue of providing the optimal environment for child birth and rearing.
Comment