In my last post, I shared a video by a young man named Zach Wals, who explained why he thought treating gay couples differently than straight couples was discrimination. He used his own experience as the child of a gay couple to highlight that he was not so different than other people.
Some opponents, like the excellent Calvin Freiburger and David Forsmark of NewsReal Blog, and the National Review’s Ed Whelan, advocate a secular argument against gay marriage. In brief, the argument states that the government should recognize those relationships that most benefit the continuation of the nation. Namely, those that produce and raise children. Usually, the argument is extended to including those couples that do not want children, because they may end up procreating by accident. They further extend it to those couples that cannot possibly have children due to medical condition, because it prevents the other partner from engaging in infidelity (which isn’t working so well these days).
The problem is that gays are producing children.* Not between themselves, of course, but artificial insemination, among other methods, is allowing more and more gays (i.e. lesbians) to produce children. So why does it hurt to include gays in the institution of marriage if they’re having children? Ironically, the secular argument would seem to suggest that it is for the best.
Calvin writes:
Marriage is essential to society because it helps instill in future citizens competence, industriousness, self-sufficiency, and virtue, so society emphasizes the parental aspect of marriage and reinforces responsibility toward one’s offspring.
I think there is a lot of truth in this. Indeed, there is at least some evidence that divorce and single-parenting can cause developmental problems in children, though apparently post-divorce couplings may be problematic as well. So, married parents, or more specifically, the only married parents the child has ever known, seem to have benefits for development.
However, what exactly is the difference between the only married straight parents that the child has ever known, and the only married gay parents the child has ever known? I haven’t really seen this question satisfactorily answered by advocates of the secular argument. If monogamous marriage really is the best answer for children, then what is the difference if the parents are both straight or both gay?
The response I usually see suggests that the lack of a father figure makes it detrimental for the child. I have agreed in the past that the father-mother dynamic is probably the best, but I was operating on what seemed like common sense, rather than empirical study. In fact, studies seem to show that there are no significant developmental differences between the children of straight couples and the children of gay couples. I do think there is room for more study, as most of it seems to have started in the late 70s to mid 80s. That makes sense, because it’s when gay issues were just emerging. However, at the moment, the suggestion that gay parents necessarily produce less well-adjusted children must be considered absurd.
Combined with real-life examples (like Wals), it seems that it is not necessarily the gender of the parents that determines how well the child will develop, but the fact that they are in a stable, monogamous relationship with no major dysfunction. Also, perhaps that the child considers both parents their “birth” parents (so to speak in the case of gays) plays a role as well.
So, bringing it back to the issue of marriage, if the secular argument against gay marriage is that the government should promote those relationships that will best groom the future of the nation, then how do gay couples not fit that criteria? Those that are in stable, monogamous relationships where one parent has birthed children, seem to be raising them quite well. Now, I’m not suggesting that all gays in monogamous relationships are going to have children, but neither do couples where at least one of partners is incapable of doing so. Yet, advocates of the secular argument happily include these relationships, just because they apparently reduce infidelity. As I said before, that seems a little laughable these days.
Monogamous gay couples seem to be perfectly capable of raising the next generation without any major problems. So why are we not including them in the institution of marriage, again?
*I used to argue that gay couples are not having children, so how does it hurt anyone to not let them marry? Then I discovered, by personal experience and recent articles, that lesbians are in fact having children. Always been for gay parenting, but if they’re having children, then what sense did that statement make?
/