Where's formersnag?

Good article, just the sort of thing we need for an informed public debate. I wasn't aware that parenting outcomes had been studied, let alone that the studies came out favourably.

R stuart
There are 1000's of studies.

Of course the author would select studies that produced favourable results.

Due to corruption in social science, very little in social science is reliable.

The situation is that homosexuals rarely have anything good to say about heterosexuality, or about children born with a natural mother and father.

Next they will be calling children born through IVF as being "progressive"

vanna,

""the continuous demonisation of fathers, and the equation is now complete.

"Far from wanting “marriage equality”, homosexuality is now a direct attack on heterosexuality, and also on children born through heterosexual marriage.""

Rubbish. I am heterosexual and was just referring to dead-beat fathers in heterosexual marriages.
.

Some mothers are dead-beats, too.

Children that don't see much (or any) of one parent is more likely to be because that parent is a dead-beat (or they are dead).

McReal
The continuous demonisation of fathers makes it more difficult for them to see their children.

That demonisation does include calling them "dead beats", and not surprisingly that term has been applied mainly by feminists.

It was a form of propaganda or brainwashing.

Calling people non-progressive if they don't support children born artificially through IVF is also a form of propaganda or brainwashing.

I now see that the case being put forward for homosexual marriage is little more than propaganda, brainwashing and a disguised attack on heterosexuality, and eventually an attack on children born with a natural mother and father.

So a child is born through IVF with homosexual parents, and we are supposed to think they are "progressive".

The gay marriage debate is interesting. I have a few issues that never get resolved. This article was no help.

1. Marriage is a religious institution designed to encourage conformity to a norm of one sexual partner, and for specialisation of labour in raising children. Why do gay people want to acknowledge this ancient religious anti-gay institution at all? In Australia there are no benefits (in the form of tax treatment, visas, welfare etc) for marriage over de facto relationships. Why not just promise each other you'll be faithful till death do you part?

2. If people want 'marriage equality' why can't I marry my sister? Or my mother? Surely to be equal ALL marriage must be allowed? After all, the main social problems of genetic abnormalities from inbreeding can be solved by IVF - the same way gay couples have children. It is love between two adults - what's wrong with it? I can't believe anyone could argue for gay marriage and not for sibling marriage, since the arguments are all the same.

3. Any study showing the 'superior' outcomes of children from gay couples must control for incomes and other social factors. I have a hard time believing that the 'gay couples with children' sample of society has a similar income distribution to 'heterosexual couples with children' and we know this is a huge factor in child development.

4. Is the desire to have children not related to the desire to mate with the opposite sex? I suspect that the two are related, which makes me feel there is more of a 'conforming to social identity' issue driving the desire to be a progressive gay couple.

5. Are children raised by gay parents more likely to be gay? It seems intuitive that they would be, both because one parent would be a biological parent, and nuturing and exposure to 'gay' behaviour. Is this good or bad? Are children getting a choice?

Finally, I always wonder why people don't just say why they feel gay marriage is unacceptable instead of beating around the bush about 'equality'.