Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: bobcpg
The best rational to NOT let them marry in the eyes of the Gov't is because the Gov't have a duty to make sure we grow and prosper. Like it or not, 2 men or 2 women can not have a baby together. Yeah, women can get artificially pregnant but science proves, as an overall effect, it is best for human kids to grow up with parents of both genders, not to mention its not natural.
link please.
that claim is patently false. The only studies to look at such a thing have shown that by-and-large, children raised by same-sex couples tend to fair significantly better that those raised by an equal sample of hetero couples.
Using science with "prove" simply shows your inability to scrutinize such studies, let alone the interests groups that feed you such misreported data.
I'd like to see some of these studies. I don't doubt your claim, it's purely for my own edification, and a point I was considering the last time gay marriage was debated here (last week, maybe? It's been so long...). And the point is this:
There's no test for becoming a parent through sexual intercourse. You don't have to put your personal or professional life up for scrutiny to impregnate someone, nor to be impregnated, nor to carry a fetus to term, nor to give birth (well, barring potential harm to the mother or fetus, or in the case of people with developmental disabilities who are impregnated though legally unable to consent to sex). Anyone can have a baby in our society through sex; it's part of living in a free society, and why would we want to stop that?
But gays don't have children through sex (in most cases). Lesbians can use invetro fertilization to conceive, a process which carries strict background checks. Lesbians and gay men alike can also adopt, the route through which most gay couples end up with children. The standards for adoption vary from agency to agency, but every agency has some form of testing to determine whether a potential adoptive family represents a nurturing environment for a child. Often, these tests are extremely thorough, involving looking at a potential family's employment, personal life, educational background, history (criminal records, for example), and every minute detail you can think of. Because many agencies are very selective, the smallest "problem" can effectively ruin a couple's chance to adopt.
What's my point? Well, my point is that because adoptive parents are put through a rigorous screening process that does not exist for birth parents, one would expect that adoptive families would show a higher level of success when raising children. You would also expect a slightly higher level of success because you can't accidentally adopt someone, while we all know about the prevalence of
accidental pregnancies; all adoptive parents
want to be parents.
Now, the crux of the issue. Since gays and lesbians are largely limited to adoption to get children, we would expect that gay and lesbian families would show slightly higher levels of success than straight couples who conceived the natural way. Obviously success as a family is hard to define, and it really depends on what metric you use, but given that adoptive parents are more likely to be good parents and gays and lesbians are adoptive parents more often than not... well, you make the logical jump.
Is it true? I have no idea. Which is why I'd like to see these studies. What a blow to the notion of "one man, one woman," for a successful family if it is.
PS - :beer: to Harvey for handing me my very first ban on the AT forums (justifiably so), then lifting it so quickly upon further review. The great moderation is just one more reason I like these forums. Keep up the good work! And just so we're clear, no, this is not meant as sarcasm.