This is just a quick FYI to my post that I thought the "gay marriage" issue is a relatively small social issue, so long as something is done to deal with children rights to have access to biological parents. The main points of update are as follows:
Today the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) released their annual nationwide survey, and for the first time they survey sexual orientation. What they found was 1.6% of the population identify as being homosexual, 0.6% identify as bisexual, 1% refused to identify or said they were "something else" (interesting!), and 96.6% said they are heterosexual. This is considered a gold standard survey due to the large sample size (over 33,000 people) and their surveying method of face to face interviews with telephone follow-ups. Aside from the headline issues, the rest of the survey is worth reading.
2. A recent extremely small survey in Australia (315 parents, 500 children) is being touted as "the Largest Survey of Gay Parents" and the like, and concludes the kids are better off. Well, not so fast. The survey is not one which actually measures anything. It simply asked the parents how their kids are doing. It is also worth noting the author of the study is raising two children with his own homosexual partner, which is not an insignificant issue given the overall weakness of the supposed data, and the vastness of their claims. Instead, I have cited an actual quantitative study of a U. of Texas researcher, which demonstrated entirely different results, and concluded children raised by same sex parents are not better off. Here is a good summary article to review addressing both studies. Because the U of Texas authors results were so politically incorrect, his results were challenged as doctored by his critics, who even made a formal complaint to the University. Well, be careful what you ask for as a critic, because the U of T did a thorough review of his data and evidence, and said there is no evidence of doctoring or fraud. As is usual of touching such a political third rail as rejecting politically correct views, the U of T announcement did note that his study could still be seriously flawed, there is just no evidence of fraud or data doctoring. Way to back your guy, U of T.
Here is a blogger's analysis of the controversy. The results are still attacked by critics for the small sample size they studied. But the problem is that if you apply a scientific standard to comparing apples to apples, as I noted, it is nearly impossible to find any families in the USA where two same-sex involved domestic couples have been together for 18 years or more raising children together. This is not hard to find among heterosexuals, though the pool is sadly getting smaller. But instability of relationships in same-sex couples that you will not find "thousands" of such relationships for a survey. The actual Family Structures survey is here. I could not find the U of Texas study in full, so here is a very lengthy presentation of its content by the Family Research Council.
As anyone knows, these are very touchy issues. As I have stated, I think the impact of allowing gay marriage is almost zero, though I would prefer the name 'civil union' or something similar, as I think marriage has the traditional understanding of being between a man and a woman. However, I think the current research, combined with basic common sense, tells us children have better outcomes with both genders of parents active in their lives. Homosexuals feel attacked as bad people or a social pariah if their parenting is seen as being less than perfect for raising children. But it is actually no different than the myriad of studies which show children of divorce or other single parent families or step families tend to have more issues as adults or children than kids from intact two parent families. There is a range of real outcomes in those groups, including great adults from abusive divorced parents and horrible adults from seemingly solid two parent families. But we don't try to put the worst of one group against the best of another. Kids deserve to have access to their two biological parents, because they need role models. If those parents are unfit,then we protect the kids. But kids are not pets, and are not an accessory. If a person chooses to live in a downtown apartment, they can't complain they don't have a lot of private yard space. It is politically incorrect to acknowledge the biological differences of people, and to note the different roles men and women play in life. I think much more study on this subject needs to be done before we assert as a fact there is no impact on children raised in same sex couples as compared to other relationship models. It would be refreshing if we could have a study of all same sex couples with children who have been together for 18 years or more, and we end up with data both sides can agree upon. Typically liberals want to run with the most conservative approach to environmental issues or personal care issues. Think about the ideas around giving money to too many people including people who are living off the system, as opposed to too few people, and seeing some folks suffering. Think of environmental issues which are always erring on the side of preservation of habitat or species, or dealing with cutting down on carbon emissions to try to head off a possible problem with global warming. Yet we ignore both studies which are considered "controversial" because they buck Politically Correct views and our vast academic data of unstable homes negative impact on children, simply because the unscientific views on this issue are not popular. My experience with homosexuals is they are absolutely like most anyone else in terms of interacting with me. That is the same with divorced people, single moms or married couples. But I know statistically single families and step-families are not as good for children. In a perfect world, kids should have a right to their bio parents. That right should not be excised from a child simply because homosexual couples want kids. Maybe the best way to keep both parents involved is to require people wanting to donate a child to their friends to have some financial obligation for that child, regardless of the financial position of the same-sex parents. It is true that where your treasure is, there you will find your heart. Children deserve the hearts of their biological parents, so barring that, they deserve their parents treasure. For most people, the love of a child they are involved with will eventually melt the heart of even those who think children are gifts, like a bottle of wine, they can give away to show how much they like their friends. Kids in same sex parent homes have a much higher probability of being on welfare or other social services due to the fact same sex families tend to separate at much higher rates than heterosexual families. So putting money aside for those children is not a bad idea. That is, if you care about the children.