Last Tuesday the Court heard oral arguments in favor and in opposition to legalized same sex marriage. I am not a big fan of this whole same-sex marriage craze. I do not think the comparisons to interracial marriage really make sense nor do I think that same-sex marriage is totally immoral -- in part because I am secular (I am still a social conservative, of course, but I reach those conclusions through secular argumentation). I will outline a few brief points for anyone who wants the Supreme Court to rule in favor of gay marriage.
1) It will not help homosexuals
I mean, it will, sure. But the benefits people (like the APA) think homosexuals will receive is overblown. They think that banning gay marriage causes stigma, depression, and suicide. I can buy stigma. But the other two, really? And even then gay marriage bans only cause stigma because the arguments in favor of the ban tend to be oriented towards religion -- God dislikes homosexuals -- or silly arguments like that. A ban which is founded upon reasonable arguments as to what marriage is should not cause stigma. And this ignores the stigma Christians receive when gay marriage is legal. Evidence from the Canadian experience are here, and from Massachusetts here.
The arguments that it will help homosexuals mentally I disagree with. I have written before (albeit I wasn't a very good writer then) that same sex marriage laws probably won't reduce gay suicide rates. Homosexual men in the Netherlands, a country open to homosexuality, are 8 times more likely to commit suicide. A study in Australia found that gay men had higher AIDS and promiscuity rates. Another study in the Netherlands finds that homosexuals are more likely to be diagnosed with mental disorders. Some underlying issue is causing homosexuals distress, not social stigmatization. There is little stigmatization in the aforementioned countries, yet mental issues persist. Legalizing same-sex marriage will not prevent gay suicide or reduce incidence of mental disorders.
2) Children fare best when raised by a mother and father
I am confused why this is so controversial. I have been raised by two married heterosexual parents, and if I was asked which I needed the most, it would be impossible for me to say. I am of the belief that gender does, in fact, matter. The last three decades of social science confirms that children need both mothers and fathers, and being fatherless leads to many negative outcomes.
Studies on gay parents find similar results. Probably the best study was done by Donald P. Sullins of The Catholic University of America. Using a random sample -- 500 children raised by homosexuals -- he found that the differences in mental health were astounding. He found that children raised by homosexuals were twice as likely to experience emotional problems. When he controls for biology there is almost no difference. That means that gender does matter.
Mark Regnerus, also using a random sample, found many negative outcomes for children raised by gay parents. Regnerus responds to criticisms here. HE didn't use "stable" gay households because they usually don't exist. If a random sample finds zero stable same-sex households, it tells us that there is some degree of instability in same-sex households. A study of married Swedish homosexuals found that both male and female homosexuals had higher rates of divorce. So "marriage" does not fix the issue. Instability (probably through gay norms) seems to be very common in their familial structures. This, Regnerus argues, is the cause of the worse outcomes. So comparing stable homosexuals to stable heterosexuals is an ideological methodology not founded upon actual science. If two random samples show a difference, then there is a difference. If nonrandom samples selecting *only* stable same-sex households find little to no difference, it is selective methodology to fit political purposes.
There are others, like the study by Douglass Allen finding lower graduation rates, Loren marks who debunks a lot of pro-gay research, Lerner and Nagai who criticize the pro-gay research, and research by Daniel Potter who confirms a lot of the Regnerus findings, it seems to be difficult to seriously defend the 'no difference' hypothesis.
Gays will always be able to raise children. And that is fine. Even assuming the findings above are correct -- which they are -- there is no reason to discriminate or harass homosexuals who raise children. In many cases, it is the *best* option for children who would otherwise be raised in the system. I support ending stigma and discrimination. But allowing same-sex 'marriage' fails to accomplish that goal. All rights given through marriage can be obtained through civil unions, and that would prevent the possible societal harms from gay marriage. (Those harms can be researched a bit here, here, and here).
1) It will not help homosexuals
I mean, it will, sure. But the benefits people (like the APA) think homosexuals will receive is overblown. They think that banning gay marriage causes stigma, depression, and suicide. I can buy stigma. But the other two, really? And even then gay marriage bans only cause stigma because the arguments in favor of the ban tend to be oriented towards religion -- God dislikes homosexuals -- or silly arguments like that. A ban which is founded upon reasonable arguments as to what marriage is should not cause stigma. And this ignores the stigma Christians receive when gay marriage is legal. Evidence from the Canadian experience are here, and from Massachusetts here.
The arguments that it will help homosexuals mentally I disagree with. I have written before (albeit I wasn't a very good writer then) that same sex marriage laws probably won't reduce gay suicide rates. Homosexual men in the Netherlands, a country open to homosexuality, are 8 times more likely to commit suicide. A study in Australia found that gay men had higher AIDS and promiscuity rates. Another study in the Netherlands finds that homosexuals are more likely to be diagnosed with mental disorders. Some underlying issue is causing homosexuals distress, not social stigmatization. There is little stigmatization in the aforementioned countries, yet mental issues persist. Legalizing same-sex marriage will not prevent gay suicide or reduce incidence of mental disorders.
2) Children fare best when raised by a mother and father
I am confused why this is so controversial. I have been raised by two married heterosexual parents, and if I was asked which I needed the most, it would be impossible for me to say. I am of the belief that gender does, in fact, matter. The last three decades of social science confirms that children need both mothers and fathers, and being fatherless leads to many negative outcomes.
Studies on gay parents find similar results. Probably the best study was done by Donald P. Sullins of The Catholic University of America. Using a random sample -- 500 children raised by homosexuals -- he found that the differences in mental health were astounding. He found that children raised by homosexuals were twice as likely to experience emotional problems. When he controls for biology there is almost no difference. That means that gender does matter.
Mark Regnerus, also using a random sample, found many negative outcomes for children raised by gay parents. Regnerus responds to criticisms here. HE didn't use "stable" gay households because they usually don't exist. If a random sample finds zero stable same-sex households, it tells us that there is some degree of instability in same-sex households. A study of married Swedish homosexuals found that both male and female homosexuals had higher rates of divorce. So "marriage" does not fix the issue. Instability (probably through gay norms) seems to be very common in their familial structures. This, Regnerus argues, is the cause of the worse outcomes. So comparing stable homosexuals to stable heterosexuals is an ideological methodology not founded upon actual science. If two random samples show a difference, then there is a difference. If nonrandom samples selecting *only* stable same-sex households find little to no difference, it is selective methodology to fit political purposes.
There are others, like the study by Douglass Allen finding lower graduation rates, Loren marks who debunks a lot of pro-gay research, Lerner and Nagai who criticize the pro-gay research, and research by Daniel Potter who confirms a lot of the Regnerus findings, it seems to be difficult to seriously defend the 'no difference' hypothesis.
Gays will always be able to raise children. And that is fine. Even assuming the findings above are correct -- which they are -- there is no reason to discriminate or harass homosexuals who raise children. In many cases, it is the *best* option for children who would otherwise be raised in the system. I support ending stigma and discrimination. But allowing same-sex 'marriage' fails to accomplish that goal. All rights given through marriage can be obtained through civil unions, and that would prevent the possible societal harms from gay marriage. (Those harms can be researched a bit here, here, and here).
No comments:
Post a Comment