Make a purely secular argument for 1 woman & 1 man.

[jmvizanko]

The only arguments I have ever seen for forcing the definition of marriage to be only one woman and one man fall into 2 categories. One is an argument that is derived from somebody's religion, say for example, Christianity suggesting 1 woman and 1 man. The other is an argument from majority/tradition, say for example, most or many cultures throughout history defined marriage this way, so that's what it should be.

In America, we have a bill of rights that clearly states we should not have a state religion. Therefore the first argument does not suffice for a justification for making gay marriage, or polygamy, illegal in the US. The second argument seems to be used when the first argument fails, namely because of the above reason I just gave. But it also fails because we have a bill of rights that clearly states we have a right to practice religion freely. If your religion allows polygamy, the American government in no way has a right to deny your practice of it. And both fail in basic principle that they are based on ethnocentricity and are anti personal freedom, and I have no clue how anyone could put either argument forward and still spout that they love America because it stands for freedom.

The only convincing argument that wouldn't violate the first amendment or the respect of personal freedom would be one based solely on logic. I challenge anyone to present such an argument, that is not derived from their religion, their personal preferences, or the basis that their religion/culture should rule all others.

[dianaiad]

The optimal situation is for kids to have a mother and father, not two of each.

This statement is false. Why do you keep repeating this false statement?

While my own faith tells me that his statement is 'true' if all other things are the same (loving parents, no abuse, stuff like that) I don't know that studies have shown that ANY heterosexual set of parents is better than EVERY homosexual set, so his statement is most definitely--not proven.

...........but then, neither is yours.

Nothing in science is ever proven. The question is, what does the evidence say? The evidence, all of it that we have, says that this statement is false.

I wouldn't worry about what your faith tells you. It tells you all sorts of things that have nothing to do with the facts.

Actually, I have presented, and will be happy to present again, the reams of studies that support my statement. East of Eden has presented a total of zero to support his. That's because there aren't any.

Let's accept for the sake of argument that a children growing up with their own biological parents is best. I think the data supports that.

No, it doesn't. What is best for children is two parents of the same sex. Next best is two parents, whether adoptive or not, of the opposite sex.

Hmmn. I do think I"m missing something here...like a Monty Python sketch?

I fail to see the humor.

McCulloch posted the script for one of the classics a few posts ago.

Classically apt, too, given the posts immediately before that.

I will even entertain the possibilty, although I do not think the data unambiguously supports this, that two parents of opposite genders are better than one, even if one or both of the parents is not the biological parent.

there is no data that supports this. In fact, the data shows that the opposite is true. Why would you accept this, when it is not true?

At some point, we can then get back to the actual data of "two is best." From the data I have seen, "two opposite gender parents is best" is only true if they are both the biological parents.

It's not true at all. Children growing up with two parents of the same sex do AT LEAST AS WELL, IF NOT BETTER, than children with two parents of the opposite sex.

Care to show the studies?

..........................................with a multiple regression showing the influence of all other factors, like, oh, education, income, interest in the children, whether you are talking about adopted children or 'biological' children, and the surrounding culture of acceptance/rejection?

Not that I automatically reject the idea; there ARE all those other factors that would tend to support the 'adopted children of homosexual parents do at least as well as' children with two parents of the opposite sex, but for me, that's a reasoned hypothesis, not something I've done any research on.

Will do.

Thanks.

[dianaiad]

as requested by dianiad:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/ 10.1111/ j.1467-8624.2004.00823.x/ abstract;jsessionid=1158DEE8DA1106142F2C39B1FE1E5921.d01t04? systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+17+March+from+10-14+GMT+%2806-10+EDT%29+for+essential+maintenance& userIsAuthenticated=false& deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=

Normative analyses indicated that, on measures of psychosocial adjustment and school outcomes, adolescents were functioning well, and their adjustment was not generally associated with family type. Assessments of romantic relationships and sexual behavior were not associated with family type. Regardless of family type, adolescents whose parents described closer relationships with them reported better school adjustment.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... ID_NOT_SET

A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.

Here is an excellent review of the research:
http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Fil ... Review.pdf
not only has research indicated that parenting by same-sex parents is not poorer,
but that it appears, in some aspects at least, likely to be somewhat better. Similarly, research has not only indicated that the outcomes of children of same-sex parents are not poorer, but that outcomes
would seem to be likely to be at least as favourable (e.g., see Biblarz & Stacey, 2006; Coontz, 1997; Johnson & O’Connor, 2002; Kershaw, 2000; McNair, 2004; Millbank, 2003; Patterson, 2000; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 2005; VLRC, 2007). Reviewers have also increasingly taken note of the links between positive parenting practices and children’s experiences and outcomes. For example, summary statements from recent reviews include:
[S]ome new research suggests that lesbian and gay families are in some respects better for children than heterosexual families… Research on the division of parenting and household labour among lesbian co-parents and gay-co-parents has shown a distinct pattern of equality and sharing compared to heterosexual parents, with corresponding positive well-being for the partner’s relationship with each other, and the child’s adjustment. (Millbank, 2003, pp. 546-547)

What differences have emerged, however, suggest that gay and lesbian parents tend to be more responsive to their children, more child oriented, and more egalitarian in their sharing of the workload, characteristics associated with a more positive child outcome. (Johnson & O’Connor,
2002, p. 67)

The research indicates that parenting practices and children’s outcomes in families parented by lesbian and gay parents are likely to be at least as favourable as those in families of heterosexual parents, despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.

[more to come]

Thank you very much for the studies!

OK, I looked...and as I do have access to the databases, I also got to see the actual statistical results behind what was reported in the abstracts you posted.

What everybody is saying in them is that there is NO DIFFERENCE between heterosexual parents and homosexual parents based upon specific measurements of school success and specific measurements of psychological health in their children, all other things being constant. The differences that are statistically significant (though extremely low) involve problems that are not, actually, based on sexual preference, but rather on life experience. For instance, a lesbian mother is going to be slightly more interested in providing a male role model in her child's life than is a divorced single mother. The reasons for THAT one seem pretty obvious.

Certainly there seems to be no difference between homosexual and heterosexual fathers, in terms of parenting outcomes. The biggie--the thing that makes the difference for everybody--isn't sexual preference, but rather (far in the lead) closeness to the children.

I expected that. What I don't see is any support for your assertion that children are better off in homosexual households....all other things being equal.

[Autodidact]

That's right, dianiad, most studies find NO DIFFERENCE, and that is probably the most accurate summary of all the research. In addition,

The authors found that children raised by lesbian mothers — whether the mother was partnered or single — scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior. These findings were expected, the authors said; however, they were surprised to discover that children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.

from National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS), Gartrell and Bos.

So the most accurate way to summarize the research is to say that children in same-sex families do at least as well as children in heterosexual families.

To say that children in heterosexual families do better than children in same-sex families, as East of Eden is doing, is false.

[Autodidact]

So, East, here's my question to you:
Given that the overwhelming result of all the research is consistent, and shows that children of same sex families do AT LEAST AS WELL as children of heterosexual families, research of all kinds, longitudinal, case studies, matched samples, from several different countries, by many different researchers, and given that this research has now been accepted by every relevant scientific and child welfare organization, on what basis do you continue to assert that the opposite is true?

Do you have a study that compares the two groups (which I'm sure you'll agree would be the only really helpful study on the subject) and finds the opposite? If so, would you please cite it? If not, would you please stop making this false claim? Thank you.

[dianaiad]

That's right, dianiad, most studies find NO DIFFERENCE, and that is probably the most accurate summary of all the research. In addition,

The authors found that children raised by lesbian mothers — whether the mother was partnered or single — scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior. These findings were expected, the authors said; however, they were surprised to discover that children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.

from National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS), Gartrell and Bos.

So the most accurate way to summarize the research is to say that children in same-sex families do at least as well as children in heterosexual families.

To say that children in heterosexual families do better than children in same-sex families, as East of Eden is doing, is false.

Yes, I read that study. I'm not arguing that kids do better in heterosexual families, y'know. I'm reacting to your claim that they do WORSE. There are two problems with the study you have just mentioned. First, one cannot exactly call the study as one from an unbiased source. For one thing, they are comparing apples to chalk. The two samples were, in fact, more than a bit cherry picked--I have to give them credit for being upfront with that part, by the way.

For another, even with the cherry picking, the difference between the two groups was so small as to be only slightly statistically significant.

So, if the people claiming that it's better for children in heterosexual families are wrong, so are those who argue the opposite.

Cue Monty Python.

[Autodidact]

That's right, dianiad, most studies find NO DIFFERENCE, and that is probably the most accurate summary of all the research. In addition,

The authors found that children raised by lesbian mothers — whether the mother was partnered or single — scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior. These findings were expected, the authors said; however, they were surprised to discover that children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.

from National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS), Gartrell and Bos.

So the most accurate way to summarize the research is to say that children in same-sex families do at least as well as children in heterosexual families.

To say that children in heterosexual families do better than children in same-sex families, as East of Eden is doing, is false.

Yes, I read that study. I'm not arguing that kids do better in heterosexual families, y'know. I'm reacting to your claim that they do WORSE. There are two problems with the study you have just mentioned. First, one cannot exactly call the study as one from an unbiased source.

Why not?

For one thing, they are comparing apples to chalk. The two samples were, in fact, more than a bit cherry picked--I have to give them credit for being upfront with that part, by the way.

Well,

1:1 matching with the NLLFS adolescents
on gender, age, ethnicity, and parental education (highest
degree held by the parents).

How would have had them match the two groups? I don't think adolescents of the same age, gender, ethnicity and parental education are as different as apples and chalk, do you?

For another, even with the cherry picking, the difference between the two groups was so small as to be only slightly statistically significant.

O.K., it was slightly statistically significant.

So, if the people claiming that it's better for children in heterosexual families are wrong, so are those who argue the opposite.

I'm not arguing that heterosexuals should not be allowed to marry because it's better for children to grow up in same sex families. The false assertion that same-sex families are not a good environment for children is being used as a purportedly secular argument against same-sex marriage. I am pointing out that this assertion is false. In fact, they do just as well with same sex parents. To the degree there is any indication of difference, it seems to favor the same sex parents, not the opposite sex parents.

If I were arguing against heterosexual marriage, your point would be valid. If I were arguing against heterosexual families having or raising children, your point would be valid. I am not. I am merely pointing out that East of Eden's assertions are completely, repeatedly and demonstrably false.

[East of Eden]

So, East, here's my question to you:
Given that the overwhelming result of all the research is consistent, and shows that children of same sex families do AT LEAST AS WELL as children of heterosexual families, research of all kinds, longitudinal, case studies, matched samples, from several different countries, by many different researchers, and given that this research has now been accepted by every relevant scientific and child welfare organization, on what basis do you continue to assert that the opposite is true?

Do you have a study that compares the two groups (which I'm sure you'll agree would be the only really helpful study on the subject) and finds the opposite? If so, would you please cite it? If not, would you please stop making this false claim? Thank you.

See post 202. Gay couples are by definition without either a mother or a father. Two mothers don't equal a father.

[Thatguy]

So, East, here's my question to you:
Given that the overwhelming result of all the research is consistent, and shows that children of same sex families do AT LEAST AS WELL as children of heterosexual families, research of all kinds, longitudinal, case studies, matched samples, from several different countries, by many different researchers, and given that this research has now been accepted by every relevant scientific and child welfare organization, on what basis do you continue to assert that the opposite is true?

Do you have a study that compares the two groups (which I'm sure you'll agree would be the only really helpful study on the subject) and finds the opposite? If so, would you please cite it? If not, would you please stop making this false claim? Thank you.

See post 202. Gay couples are by definition without either a mother or a father. Two mothers don't equal a father.

While the opinion piece you cited does allude to a lot of studies, it doesn't cite them so that they themselves can be readily reviewed. From the looks of it, most are comparing, in effect, the outcome of raising kids without the divorce of the parents or death of one or more parents vs. single parenthood. That's not a fair comparison between homosexuals parents and similarly situated straight parents.

[Autodidact]

So, East, here's my question to you:
Given that the overwhelming result of all the research is consistent, and shows that children of same sex families do AT LEAST AS WELL as children of heterosexual families, research of all kinds, longitudinal, case studies, matched samples, from several different countries, by many different researchers, and given that this research has now been accepted by every relevant scientific and child welfare organization, on what basis do you continue to assert that the opposite is true?

Do you have a study that compares the two groups (which I'm sure you'll agree would be the only really helpful study on the subject) and finds the opposite? If so, would you please cite it? If not, would you please stop making this false claim? Thank you.

See post 202. Gay couples are by definition without either a mother or a father. Two mothers don't equal a father.

So I gather that no, you do not have any such studies?

That's right. And by the same token, a mother and father don't equal two mothers. What's your point?

Are you seriously trying to define your way into factuality despite reality?

[East of Eden]

So, East, here's my question to you:
Given that the overwhelming result of all the research is consistent, and shows that children of same sex families do AT LEAST AS WELL as children of heterosexual families, research of all kinds, longitudinal, case studies, matched samples, from several different countries, by many different researchers, and given that this research has now been accepted by every relevant scientific and child welfare organization, on what basis do you continue to assert that the opposite is true?

Do you have a study that compares the two groups (which I'm sure you'll agree would be the only really helpful study on the subject) and finds the opposite? If so, would you please cite it? If not, would you please stop making this false claim? Thank you.

See post 202. Gay couples are by definition without either a mother or a father. Two mothers don't equal a father.

While the opinion piece you cited does allude to a lot of studies, it doesn't cite them so that they themselves can be readily reviewed. From the looks of it, most are comparing, in effect, the outcome of raising kids without the divorce of the parents or death of one or more parents vs. single parenthood. That's not a fair comparison between homosexuals parents and similarly situated straight parents.

You are certainly selective with your studies. When presented with many showing the deadly effect of the male gay lifestyle (rather obvious), you dismissed it as some kind of Catholic invention.