I remarked the other day that, in the ongoing debate about same-sex “marriage,” I’ve been struck by how rarely — at least in my reading — advocates of SSM mention the rights or interests of children. Perhaps it’s merely a sampling error on my part, but that’s certainly my sense of the controversy. And when they do discuss effects on children, it seems that they’re typically doing so in order to rebut suggestions that being raised by same-gender caregivers might prove harmful to children in the long term.
Here is one such warning:
Now, I realize that the social sciences are much more contentious, much more prone to being ideologically-driven and -influenced, than are the physical or “hard” sciences, and that decisive “proof” is far more difficult to come by in sociology or in clinical psychology than in, say, analytical chemistry, metallurgy, or particle physics. I’m acutely aware of the fact that topics like this are fiercely riven, even among supposedly dispassionate academics and professionals, along philosophical and political lines. I realize that the American College of Pediatricians has drawn intense fire for its socially conservative stance — and I’m neither surprised nor particularly impressed by that, as such.
I wonder, though, in the current climate, whether such warnings as the one to which I link above are being given sufficiently serious attention.
And if I’m personally attacked and defamed for posting this, as may well be the case, that will simply strengthen my impression that the substance of such warnings is, by and large, not being addressed in a serious and mature way.
(It’s been rather depressingly amusing, sometimes, to hear of demonstrations in which radical Muslims protest charges that Islam is violent by calling for the death of those making such charges. A pretty convincing response, that!)