I'm a libertarian lawyer and college professor. I blog on religion, history, constitutional law, government policy, philosophy, sexuality, and the American Founding. Everything is fair game though. Over the years, I've been involved in numerous group blogs that come and go. This blog archives almost everything I write.
Email your questions or comments to rowjonathan@aol.com
Groundbreaking? Yes and no. Meezan and Rauch demonstrate that there is no scientific basis for claims that gay parenting is bad for kids, and I believe them when they say that future and better studies are not likely to provide any such basis. But as their article points out, that's not likely to make any difference to those whose objections to gay parenting and gay marriage are primarily moral rather than practical. Since it's likely to resonate mainly with the reality-based types who are already OK with gay marriage, the article is not likely to be "groundbreaking" in the sense of providing the needed political breakthrough.
I think the debate will be decided gradually, as existing gay married couples provide more and more anecdotal evidence that their existence does not harm others--and as their existence reframes the debate from preventing harm to paranoid straights to taking an existing benefit away from people.
2 comments:
Groundbreaking? Yes and no. Meezan and Rauch demonstrate that there is no scientific basis for claims that gay parenting is bad for kids, and I believe them when they say that future and better studies are not likely to provide any such basis. But as their article points out, that's not likely to make any difference to those whose objections to gay parenting and gay marriage are primarily moral rather than practical. Since it's likely to resonate mainly with the reality-based types who are already OK with gay marriage, the article is not likely to be "groundbreaking" in the sense of providing the needed political breakthrough.
I think the debate will be decided gradually, as existing gay married couples provide more and more anecdotal evidence that their existence does not harm others--and as their existence reframes the debate from preventing harm to paranoid straights to taking an existing benefit away from people.
Just a bit of that anecdotal evidence...
""Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn't have children to begin with.""
Post a Comment