What is the result of all of broad, sweeping generalities about homosexuality in our public discourse? I believe that all people will be damaged by this kind of talk. The human race, far and wide, will not be able to think in complex ways.
I concluded a few years ago that the Miller-Jenkins custody-kidnapping case's greatest significance as a social turning point was in revealing the new willingness of many in organized religious conservatism, "even the lawyers among them, to applaud and defend the defiance of court orders."
I was both intrigued and annoyed by a New York Times piece this morning about the supposed pressure gay men are feeling to have children. The premise starts off well, but the piece seems to assume that having children is the be all and end all for everyone, gay and straight.
But many critics have missed one of Regnerus' most unexpected findings, one that may illuminate his study's shortcomings. Specifically, and feeding into pretty much all the other problems, the study diagnoses children of gay parents as having a huge problem with poverty.
Had Regnerus walked down the hall and knocked on my door, I would have been happy to explain that stress and instability harm children in any family context. Love and support help children to thrive and succeed.
A byproduct of growing up with a closeted gay dad was that men became puzzles to me. What was going on in there? Did I know anything about how they worked? I started to look at all of them as mysteries to be solved, which meant that I often dated withholding men.
A recently published study purports to show that children of same-sex parents experience a significant degree of negative outcomes. These findings would certainly be surprising -- if they were supported by the evidence.
One would think that if you wanted to find out if kids raised by same-sex couples were impacted by their parents' sexual orientation, you would compare those kids to kids raised by opposite-sex couples, right? Well, no.