Powered by TypePad

« Krugman On Social Security - Off To The Races | Main | Do You Know Your Kaus? »

January 29, 2005


Jim Henley

"Cameron and Cameron's reanalysis of published data in 2002 indicates children being raised in a home environment with at least one homosexual parent report some negative consequences. However, a closer look at the information presented suggests (especially in the absence of control groups) that the negative consequences documented do not constitute major psychological trauma. Rather, they are more in the nature of the teasing and bullying that plagues any child who comes from a home that may be atypical in any fashion."

That would be from studies,/i>, you know?

" . . . the recency of that phenomenon has not yet permitted any study of how those children fare as adults and at best minimal study of how they fare during their adolescent years."

Hm. If the implication is that we are to FORBID homosexual marriage because it MIGHT lead to harms we haven't been able to study yet, that seems as clear an example of the "precautionary principle" as one might hope to find. Last I checked, the precautionary principle was a stupid idea.


So, we should continue to experiment with children?

And the objective standard of a not unfavorable outcome would be what? No less bullying than usual?

The Precautionary Principle may be stupid, but invoking it is a bit of a straw man. It also seems to turn the concept on its head. It's usually invoked because there might be some unknown, but negative consequences of the particular investigation, while the investigation is hypothesized to produce beneficial consequences.

In what way does homosexual marriage (an oxymoron, if ever there was one) and/or adoption by homosexuals present beneficial consequences to mankind?

Does the scourge of HIV/AIDS suggest anything regarding practices and behaviors that society should promote, inhibit, or remain neutral?

Perhaps there's more to all this than I've considered.

TJ Jackson

No obviously the best family is composed of orphans raised by a she wolf. Boy what have you been smoking?

Bill Arnold

Forbes, most HIV infection/AIDS worldwide results from heterosexual promiscuity without a barrier like a condom. So obviously the world needs less unprotected heterosexual promiscuity. Less sharing of needles by drug users would be good too, as would less unprotected homosexual promiscuity.

Homosexual civil marriage would simply be an extension of marriage law/rights to same sex couples. It's hard for me to understand why an increase in the number of married couples (with the stability that committment and combined lives/incomes bring) would be anything but an overall good?

Adoption by same sex couples (or artificial insemination plus real birth by two-female couples) gives us a larger number of committed childrearers. Sounds good to me, and certainly not bad.

Cecil Turner

"Homosexual civil marriage would simply be an extension of marriage law/rights to same sex couples."

Personally, my interest in the gay marriage issue is just about nonexistent. But if we're going to redefine a millenia-old institution, the usual method is to persuade some legislators to pass some laws. If the recent exit polling is accurate, a majority of Americans support civil unions, so that part ought not to be too hard. But framing it as a civil rights issue for children of gay couples, with minimal scientific evidence, and trying to back-door it through the legal system is likely to cause [has already caused] a backlash.

And I'm not sure why the precautionary principle can't get any respect . . . are we leaping before we look now? If so, let's start by getting rid of those stupid environmental impact studies. And build some more nuclear power plants.


My parents were married for almost 50 years, it was their first marriage (my father remarried after my mom died). They got married in a synagogue. My mom stayed home, my dad worked, they raised us in a nice suburb. Very classic.

I would rather have been raised by a less-neurotic less-abusive gay couple than them. I don't hate them or anything, but they were much lousier parents than many gay couples parenting now.


The question is, if you have inconclusive evidence due to too little information, does it make sense to have court decisions enshrining permanent rules into the constitution based on the assumption that there will NEVER be ANY evidence of a difference between the two?


Only if "committed child-rearers" was a noun of indeterminate and interchangeable gender.
But what a father brings to the table is entirely different than a mother. What are two guys going to be able to do to help and understand a girl having her first period? What are two women who see no value in loving a man going to do to the psyche of a boy? What are the respective kids going to lack from not having a father or a mother, respectively?
The intuitive answer, I guess, depends on what you have internalized.

Entropia Universe Gold

Since I entered into this game, I learnt skills to earn Entropia Universe Gold.


When you have LOTRO Gold, you can get more!

The comments to this entry are closed.