From today’s New York Times:
There’s nothing like a touch of real-world experience to inject some reason into the inflammatory national debate over gay marriages. Take Massachusetts, where the state’s highest court held in late 2003 that under the State Constitution, same-sex couples have a right to marry. The State Legislature moved to undo that decision last year by approving a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages and create civil unions as an alternative. But this year, when precisely the same measure came up for a required second vote, it was defeated by a thumping margin of 157 to 39.
The main reason for the flip-flop is that some 6,600 same-sex couples have married over the past year with nary a sign of adverse effects. The sanctity of heterosexual marriages has not been destroyed. Public morals have not gone into a tailspin. Legislators who supported gay marriage in last year’s vote have been re-elected. Gay couples, many of whom had been living together monogamously for years, have rejoiced at official recognition of their commitment.
As a Republican leader explained in justifying his vote switch: “Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry who could not before.” A Democrat attributed his change of heart to the beneficial effects he saw “when I looked in the eyes of the children living with these couples.”
The anti-marriage equality people aren’t done in Massachusetts yet, of course; they have a new ballot measure to ban both same-sex marriage and civil unions, which the voters will get to consider in 2008. But a March 2005 Boston Globe poll found that 56% of Massachusetts voters favor same-sex marriage, and that percentage will only increase over the next three years. I expect that the numbers that favor civil unions, which the ballot measure will also ban, are even higher. Unless equality advocates in Massachusetts totally mess things up, I don’t see how they can lose in 2008.
The anti-equality line in Massachusetts has now been defeated in both the courtrooms and in the legislature. When it gets defeated in a voter ballot in 2008, what new excuse will equality opponents find to refuse to acknowledge legitimate government actions?
I was particularly struck by the Republican the Times quoted, who said “Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry who could not before.” Damn straight. The odd thing about the fight for marriage equality is that, in and of itself, it won’t change very much.
Don’t get me wrong – for those lesbian and gay couples who want to get married, it’ll be a huge difference, and I’m outraged at the injustice done to same-sex couples unfairly barred from equality.
Nonetheless, marriage equality is not a radical change, in and of itself. Marriage equality is just the latest step of two long-existing trends.
One trend is the increasing gender neutrality of marriage; although there’s still a long ways to go, the “separate spheres” that once defined marriage have become overlapping spheres. Although stay at home dads are still a small minority, their numbers are increasing, and the idea no longer seems outlandish. The number of households in which both mom and dad contribute to the homemaking and the breadwinning has increased to the point that it’s probably the norm (although most mothers still do an unfairly large share of the shared labor).
There have been a number of laws that have changed as this trend towards greater sex equality has continued. Wives can now own property independently, have the right to refuse sex with their husbands, and women in general have many more protections from discrimination in the marketplace and workforce.
As marriage becomes less and less about “wives and husbands fulfill two strictly-bounded separate roles,” the rule that only women may marry men and vice-versa has lost its basis in our society.
The second trend, of course, is the increasing acceptance of sexual minorities as equal human beings and equal citizens. The increasing acceptance of queer equality has been going on since the Stonewall riot, at least, and marriage equality is just the latest phase of this long-term movement.
Both sex equality and queer rights are important long-term movements in our society – and both of them, over the last several generations, are radical changes. Same-sex marriage, however, is just one more effect of these larger social movements. Gay marriage isn’t a radical step; it’s just the next step.
I’m sure someone’s brought this up already, but just in case…If gays and lesbians shouldn’t be allowed to marry because they can’t have children together, shouldn’t post-menopausal women also be banned from marrying?
So there’s no need for a legal intitution which defines the rights held by same-sex couples who have biological children that are related to both of them – since this situation is impossible.
Of course it’s possible. If Mom A gives birth to a child conceived with the brother of Mom B, who is legally married to Mom A, the child is related to both of them.
one of the classic justifications for marriage
The fact that a reason is “classic” does not give it the force of law. Especially for states that have explicitly set aside that justification, and happily allow the sterile and the elderly to wed.
You can’t have it both ways, guys. If the ability to make biological children together is so all-fired important, then let’s bring back laws requiring prospective marrieds to swear they are neither infirm nor impotent, and let’s encourage married people to divorce an infertile spouse. If you’re not willing to go back to those traditions, then don’t expect anyone to take you seriously when you dust off “But they can’t make babies!”, an excuse that’s stuffed into the back of the rhetorical closet whenver the queers aren’t around.
They can still provide a child with a mother and father. Whereas SSCs represent a signficant change of the rules. They cannot provide an opposite sex parental pair for a child.
And that would be the real reason. It’s not about the children. It’s not about financial costs. It’s about keeping antiquated gender roles intact.
Should marriage then be about providing children simply with two parents regardless of gender?
No. Marriage should be about two people who want to be together. In case there are children, the gender of the parents is irrelevant.
If so, why?
What does it matter the gender of the parents as long as they love and take care of their children? Studies have shown that children raised by same sex parents fair no better or worse than children raised by mixed sex parents.
I wish I’d been slightly more legalistic in framing this. I’d have been spared a lot of pendantry. “It is not possible for a same-sex couple to have their biological child.”
In your case, the child is not the couple’s biological child. It is Mom A’s biological child, it is not the biological child of Mom B. Marriage does not give people rights over their spouse’s siblings child, and only over their spouse’s child in certain circumstances (such as if it is also their child) – as I’m sure you’re aware. It also legitimises any biological children they have had in the past, and gives them rights over any potential future children should their circumstances change, which is worth thinking about when you ponder the case of the “elderly” and “infertile”.
Robert, you’re being obtuse again, as others have pointed out. The reason that first cousins are currently not allowed to marry was in fact based on the idea of harm, in that it was believed that they might produce children with genetic problems. In reality that’s probably not a very good reason, as most of the genetic problems they were afraid of only occur after several generations of inbreeding. Honestly, other than the “ick” factor, I can’t really see any good legal reason why first cousins shouldn’t be allowed to marry.
That’s the thing about applying principles like fairness – we all have things that trigger our personal “ick” response. Just because we have that response doesn’t mean that the law has to reflect our feelings. I think that most opponents of SSM have an ick” response to the idea of non-hetero sex, or to gay people in general. That doesn’t mean that the law has to reflect their prejudices.
Dianne: “I’m sure someone’s brought this up already, but just in case…If gays and lesbians shouldn’t be allowed to marry because they can’t have children together, shouldn’t post-menopausal women also be banned from marrying? “
Does this assume she has not already had children?
Mousehounde: “It’s about keeping antiquated gender roles intact. “
What exactly are “antiquated gender roles”? Are men and women different ouside of their plumbing? Are stay at home Dad some how not men because they engage in a role that from previously the province of wives?
No. Marriage should be about two people who want to be together.
Okay, but that wanting to be together can lead to two becoming three. Speaking of three, how do you respond to those individuals who are involved in a trinary marriages, unofficially of course, or perhaps would like to be in one?
In case there are children, the gender of the parents is irrelevant.
If the gender of the parents is irrelevant, then where do the children come from?
What does it matter the gender of the parents as long as they love and take care of their children?
If gender does not matter, then why does “parents” need to be plural? I’ve asked this question in previous posts in different forms. Why, if gender does not matter, does a child need two parents? What does the extra mom/dad provide to the child other than an extra income, and help with child care?
Studies have shown that children raised by same sex parents fair no better or worse than children raised by mixed sex parents.
Do these studies take into account the presence of an opposite sex biological parent, considering that most children being raised by SSCs are from one or both partners previous heterosexeual marriage?
What exactly are “antiquated gender roles”? Are men and women different ouside of their plumbing? Are stay at home Dad some how not men because they engage in a role that from previously the province of wives?
They would be the whole “a family is a mom and dad plus kids” thing that you seem to feel is required for marriage. Kids are not required for a marriage. And requiring a male and a female is discrimination.
Okay, but that wanting to be together can lead to two becoming three. Speaking of three, how do you respond to those individuals who are involved in a trinary marriages, unofficially of course, or perhaps would like to be in one?
The discussion is not about trinary marriages. It is about SSM.
If the gender of the parents is irrelevant, then where do the children come from?
Aww, that’s cute. Do I really need to explain where children come from?
If gender does not matter, then why does “parents” need to be plural? I’ve asked this question in previous posts in different forms. Why, if gender does not matter, does a child need two parents? What does the extra mom/dad provide to the child other than an extra income, and help with child care?
The discussion is about SSM, which would imply two people, hence the “parents” when talking about couples with children.. Gender does not matter. Do children need two parents? No. Do they do better when raised in a two parent household? Sometimes, yes. What advantages are provided by having two parents of opposite sex that can’t be provided by two same sex parents?
Do these studies take into account the presence of an opposite sex biological parent, considering that most children being raised by SSCs are from one or both partners previous heterosexeual marriage?
“Studies of relationships with adults among the offspring of lesbian and gay parents have also yielded a generally positive picture (Golombok et al., 1983; Harris & Turner, 1985/86; Kirkpatrick et al., 1981). For example, Golombok and her colleagues (1983) found that children of divorced lesbian mothers were more likely to have had recent contact with their fathers than were children of divorced heterosexual mothers. Another study, however, found no differences in this regard (Kirkpatrick et al., 1981). Harris and Turner (1985/86) studied the offspring of gay fathers as well as those of lesbian mothers; parent-child relationships were described in positive terms by parents in their sample. One significant difference between lesbian and gay parents, on the one hand, and heterosexual parents, on the other, was that heterosexual parents were more likely to say that their children’s visits with the other parent presented problems for them (Harris & Turner, 1985/86). ”
Note: Research on gay and lesbian parenting is fairly new. While more studies are needed, “there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth. ” APA
Diane: shouldn’t post-menopausal women also be banned from marrying?
Of course. So should any man who’s had a vasectomy, or any woman who’s had her tubes tied. But you see, it’s really not about actually being able to conceive together: it’s about a kind of mystical interfertility that, in the minds of those who hold this view, exists for all mixed-sex couples – even those who can’t have children – and can never exist for same-sex couples, even those who plan to have children. For them, it’s not really about providing for or protecting children, no matter how much they dress it up: it’s about discriminating against same-sex couples, either as an end in itself or because they genuinely believe in this concept of mystical interfertility.
nik: I wish I’d been slightly more legalistic in framing this. I’d have been spared a lot of pedantry.
But the more legalistic you got, the less rationale you provided for claiming that same-sex marriage can’t be analogous to mixed-sex marriage. It’s true that when two women marry, neither woman can provide sperm and fertilise the other woman’s eggs. However, both women can intend to have children together. It seems really absurd to argue that because there is no sperm involved, the relationship of the women to the children they’re having together can’t be analogous to the relationship that a mixed-sex couple have to children they have together.
nik: So there’s no need for a legal intitution which defines the rights held by same-sex couples who have biological children that are related to both of them – since this situation is impossible.
Oh, I meant to answer this, too. Nik, marriage is not a legal institution which exists purely and solely to define the rights held by mixed-sex couples who have children where the woman got pregnant with her own eggs and the man provided the sperm*. It never has been, it isn’t now, and it’s pointless trying to argue that it is.
*which I think was where you’d finally be going with your legalistic definition…
Hellcat: “Does this assume she has not already had children?”
Not necessarily. What’s that got to do with anything? She certainly isn’t going to have children that are also the children of her new husband. So, would your answer be different in these two scenarios:
1. An 80 year old woman with three children, the youngest of whom is 59, who wants to marry an 81 year old man with 2 children, the youngest of whom is 52? (None of the children are in common and none are living with their parents.)
2. A 52 year old former nun who wants to marry a 29 year old man who has no children?
(Both examples are drawn from life, by the way, although the details have been altered to avoid the unlikely possibility that someone should recognize them.)
“If the gender of the parents is irrelevant, then where do the children come from?”
Sex, IVF, turkey basters, oocyte fusion, cloning…Ok, the last two aren’t commercially available options, but what if they were? A variant of oocyte fusion is being worked on in (I think) Britain as a way for women with mitochondrial illnesses to have healthy children. Suppose pure oocyte fusion (two oocytes or eggs are fused to form an embryo that is equally related to each of the two women donors) were an option for reproduction. Would your objection to lesbian couples at least disappear?
Jes: I agree with you. Children aren’t required for marriage and marriage isn’t required for children. I don’t know about the laws in Britain or even in most of the US, but in New York, if a man signs a declaration of paternity when a child is born, supports the child, and (I think the phrase is) “holds it out to the world as his”, that child is his legitimate child and he has the same rights and responsibilities as a parent whether he is married to the child’s mother or not. However, the excuse being used by the anti-gay marriage people involves reproduction, so I wanted to probe their reasoning a little. Just to see how soon it breaks down into total illogic. As it must, inevitably, do, because really it is about prejudice, not about protecting children, marriage, or anything else.
hellcat: “Do these studies take into account the presence of an opposite sex biological parent, considering that most children being raised by SSCs are from one or both partners previous heterosexeual marriage?”
So you’re suggesting that divorce is good for children? This is not the conclusion of most researchers to date. In fact, children of gay or lesbian couples who are the product of a previous marriage should be at a disadvantage compared to children being raised by biologically related opposite sex parents, who are presumably in an intact relationship. So your argument suggests that lesbian and gay couples may actually be better parents than opposite sex couples since children of gay and lesbian couples end up as healthy as their peers despite the relatively common presence of a divorce in their background. (Actually, it’s not at all clear to me that most children raised by same sex couples are the products of previous marriages. Do you have any data comparing the number of children from previous marriages versus those conceived via sperm donation or adopted?)
Many states now permit first cousins to marry. O, where will the slippery slope end!
Marriage does not give people rights over their spouse’s siblings child
Indeed it does. If Wife has an affair with Husband’s Brother, the child is nonetheless legally presumed to be Husband’s biological offspring under the law–and Husband’s Brother may not be able to do a damn thing about it.
Mysterious hints about “changed circumstances” do not explain why we would allow a woman without a uterus, or post-menopause, to marry, or why we now frown on the idea that a man should ‘put aside’ a wife who turns out to be unable to bear cihldren.
When you start trying to bring in fine distinctions to explain all the bizarre contortions necessary to make current marriage policies manage to exclude SSM. whining that it’s “pedantic” to note your contradictions is, well, whiny.
Mousehounde:They would be the whole “a family is a mom and dad plus kids” thing that you seem to feel is required for marriage. Kids are not required for a marriage.
What exactly is a “requirement for marriage”?
And requiring a male and a female is discrimination.
And excluding a male or female is not discrimination?
Aww, that’s cute. Do I really need to explain where children come from?
Well if I remember Biology 101, the male member of the human species produces sperm, and the female produces the egg, and when both, sperm and egg, are joined conception takes place. Waitamint …is production of sperm, and an egg, one of those antiquated gender roles you mentioned?
The discussion is about SSM, which would imply two people, hence the “parents” when talking about couples with children.. Gender does not matter. Do children need two parents? No. Do they do better when raised in a two parent household? Sometimes, yes. What advantages are provided by having two parents of opposite sex that can’t be provided by two same sex parents?
Well for one thing the people that made the child, should be the one’s raising him/her, barring abuse of course. It also raises the question, are men and women different, other than whether or not they have an innie or an outie? Here’s a radical thought-YES! Thus the child get to interact with both opposite sex parents, and is able to learn from both sexes. Call me crazy but the people who made the kid should be raising it. But then again we’re not talking about that are we?
As to the last paragraph. If the overwhelming majority of children being raised by same sex parents are from one or both of the partners previous heterosexual marriage, then it not unreasonable to say that the opposite sex parent must have an impact on the raising of the child. Thus the child is not exclusively raised by same sex parents, but rather one straight parent, the opposite sex gay parent, and his or her partner., and perhaps the opposite sex striaght parent’s new wife/husband. Interaction by the opposite sex parent will have to have an effect on how the child is raised, so to say that such child is being raised by “same-sex parents” is misleading. Another factor is the family structure of gay parent headed families, as Jesurgislac pointed out, in an example of two SSCs one male and one female who created children together in such a way as each man was the father of a child by each woman. Clearly in that situation gender will play a role as the children have both their biological parents.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/june99/gays14.htm
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/monacharen/2004/05/21/11769.html
“It also raises the question, are men and women different, other than whether or not they have an innie or an outie? Here’s a radical thought-YES!”
Ok, I’ll ask. How are men and women different, apart from the genitalia?
“Call me crazy but the people who made the kid should be raising it.”
Do you also think that adoption, divorce and remarriage (between opposite gender partners), sperm and oocyte donation, and single parenting should be banned since all of the above lead to children being raised by people other than those who conceived them? Should women be forced to marry their rapists if they happen to get pregnant by rape so that the child thus concieved can be raised by “the people who made it”?
BTW: Concering the contention that children of gay and lesbian parents are healthy only because of some mysterious input from their opposite sex biological parent: The following is a link to a study of children born to women who conceived through sperm donation. These women included both straight and lesbian women, couples and single mothers. The basic conclusion: “[The children’s] adjustment was unrelated to structural variables such as parental sexual orientation or the number of parents in the household.” In other words, nope, the gender of the parents doesn’t matter. The number of parents isn’t as important as everyone seems to think either.
So what was important? “Parents who were experiencing higher levels of parenting stress, higher levels of interparental conflict, and lower levels of love for each other had children who exhibited more behavior problems.” People who love their partners and their children have happier and better behaved children, regardless of the parents’ gender, sexual orientation, or even numbers.
Reference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9586218&query_hl=2
More studies, same conclusions:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9222029&query_hl=4
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7611338&query_hl=4
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15482501&query_hl=4
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11212073&query_hl=4
And excluding a male or female is not discrimination?
Certainly, if the marriage laws required spouses to be of the same sex, that would be discrimination. Nobody is arguing for SS-only marriage.
Surely you’re not trying to make the silly argument that if two women marry, they are discriminating against males.
Hellcat, I’m finding it hard to tell. Are you still arguing against same-sex marriage, or have you given up, accepted same-sex marriage, and are now arguing against same-sex couples having children?
I think it goes a bit beyond this. Certainly in the UK, the wife would have to name the husband on the birth certificate first (which is covered by the Perjury Act and, if she lies, she can be jailed for doing so). The husband cannot claim rights over a child by sole virtue of being married to its mother – if she named her lover as the father and then ran off with him – the husband would have no rights over the child. Only a right to try and prove his paternity. The rights are not by sole virtue of being married, they’re by virtue of being married and a (legal) claim being made about who’s the biological parent.
Parents status with relation to their biological children, depends on whether they’re married or not – there’s no parallel with SSM. This isn’t a fine distinction. There’s no analogy with SSM here – if a woman names her partner in a SSM as the parent on the birth certificate (outside of the ART and adoption exceptions), that’s by definition a crime. There’s a good reason why it’s a crime too: she’d be wrongly making a series of legal and economic claims against her partner, and she’d be making a false statement in order to deny the biological father of his claims.
Nik, it’s rather more straightforward than you make it sound.
A man married to a woman is deemed to be the legal father of all children she bears. He can opt out of this if he can prove that he isn’t the biological father of her child, or if she got pregnant via AID at a fertility clinic without his consent (if with his consent, or if they were “treated together”, I do not believe he can opt out of legal fatherhood).
The husband cannot claim rights over a child by sole virtue of being married to its mother
Why yes, he can. If he and the mother are married at the time of either conception or birth, he can. It is of course possible for the mother to attempt to register the child with someone other than her husband, but if she was married at the time of conception or is married at the time of birth, her husband has a claim to be the legal father, regardless of genetic connection.
Parents status with relation to their biological children, depends on whether they’re married or not – there’s no parallel with SSM.
You keep repeating this and repeating this, even after you’ve been shown clear parallels, which you then ignore. It’s almost as if you’re determined not to see the parallels, because you want same-sex marriage to be perceived as intrinsically different from mixed-sex marriage.
He can opt out of this if he can prove that he isn’t the biological father of her child, or if she got pregnant via AID at a fertility clinic without his consent
Again, the laws on this vary by state, in the US, and it can also depend on factors such as whether he knew he was not the biological father, the age of the child, and so on.
I would be very surprised to learn that the UK has abolished the presumption of paternity within marriage. It’s a rebuttable presumption.
Mythago: I would be very surprised to learn that the UK has abolished the presumption of paternity within marriage. It’s a rebuttable presumption.
Well, quite. That’s exactly what I pointed out in my comment.
Yes, I was addressing nik’s claim that a married woman who abandons her husband severs his claim to their children until he proves he is the biodad. That would be a very big departure from traditional Anglo-American law, and it’s very different from law in the US.
Generally speaking, a woman’s husband is the father of her children unless somebody, within the confines of the law, shows otherwise. (For example, many states do not allow a third party to raise a claim of paternity.)
It’s not the abandoning her husband that severs his claim so much as making a legal declaration that he is not the father (which she’s obliged to do on registering the birth). The birth certificate is such a means that you talk about. I don’t think my case is really about presumption, so much as how marriage changes peoples legal position in relation to their biological children born in the marriage.
I don’t think my case is really about presumption, so much as how marriage changes peoples legal position in relation to their biological children born in the marriage.
Your case falls over because it is based on a faulty assumption.
Marriage does not change a woman’s legal position in relation to a child born of her body; whether she is biologically-related to the child or the fetus is from donor eggs, she is the legal mother of the child.
Marriage does change the husband’s legal position: if he is married to a woman either at time of conception or at time of birth, he is presumed to be the legal father of the child, and this is so whether or not he is the biological father of the child. That’s the point you keep skipping over: legal fatherhood overrides biological fatherhood.
There is a clear and obvious parallel between the husband’s position if he is the legal father of a child who is not biologically related to him, and the wife or civil partner’s position when she becomes the legal m0ther of a child not biologically related to her. When a woman becomes pregnant via AID, her spouse (male or female) should become the child’s other legal parent. Anything else is discrimination.
he is presumed to be the legal father of the child
That is, it’s the default position in law. The husband doesn’t have to be biologically related to the child to get legal fatherhood.
Theoretically (I recall no instance) a married woman could register her child and put another man’s name on the birth certificate, but that would not give the other man (not her husband) parental rights and responsibilities automatically, though I suppose it would make him, not her husband, the legal father. Seriously, if you know of an instance where this happened, I’d appreciate a cite: it’s not something I recall happening.
Dianne Writes:
October 9th, 2005 at 8:03 pm
More studies, same conclusions:
Ok, I’ll ask. How are men and women different, apart from the genitalia?
These women included both straight and lesbian women, couples and single mothers. The basic conclusion: “[The children’s] adjustment was unrelated to structural variables such as parental sexual orientation or the number of parents in the household.” In other words, nope, the gender of the parents doesn’t matter.
Tell that to the kids who ask, “who should I send my Father’s Day card to?”
The number of parents isn’t as important as everyone seems to think either.
Well if that’s the case, if two moms are good, three would be better, or four. Or why have two parents at all? What makes the number two so special?
http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/york.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/optimal.html
http://www.faculty.virginia.edu/sexdifferences/article9.html
http://www.enotalone.com/article/4316.html
There are others but I’m sure you can see that there are differences between the sexes other than their plumbing, and that such differences impact children.
hellcat: To say that studies from NARTH are biased is like saying that there’s a slight chance that studies by the tobacco industry on lung cancer might have a mild slant. NARTH is pushing “therapy” to alter sexual orientation, a process that every respectible psychiatric organization has denounced as dangerous and ineffective. The other two links are to articles that don’t even pretend to be original peer-reviewed research. Anecdotes, just-so stories, and experts pontificating without data are not substitutes for real data. And the real data, from multiple studies published in peer-reviewed journals indicates that children raised by same gender parents are at no disadvantage compared to children raised by opposite gender parents.
“Tell that to the kids who ask, “who should I send my Father’s Day card to?””
This is one seriously offensive statement. It’s like claiming that everyone should be Christian because otherwise their kids will miss out on sending letters to Santa. Come on! Apart from the offensive “conform with the majority or else” sentiment, do you really think that not having someone to send a Father’s Day card to is going to seriously traumatize a happy, well cared for child?