The National Organization for Marriage is pushing chart by another group, the Heritage Foundation, which supposedly shows the dangers of marriage equality or as they put it "redefining marriage."
But there is one HUGE problem with the chart. It has nothing to do with marriage equality, but the dangers of fathers not being present in their children's lives:
In an attempt to connect the chart with marriage equality, Heritage Foundation member Ryan T. Anderson says the following:
In other words, according to the Heritage Foundation, marriage equality (notice how they attempt to change the term to "redefining marriage") leads to more single-mother families mired in poverty.
Bear in mind that the Heritage Foundation offers no proof that marriage equality leads to single-mother families.
And that amazingly brazen leap of logic is why NOM, the Heritage Foundation, and those who support their endeavors against marriage equality are losing the fight.
But there is one HUGE problem with the chart. It has nothing to do with marriage equality, but the dangers of fathers not being present in their children's lives:
“[R]edefining marriage further distances marriage from the needs of children and denies the importance of mothers and fathers. Redefining marriage rejects as a matter of policy the ideal that children need a mother and a father,” explains Heritage’s Ryan T. Anderson. “Redefining marriage diminishes the social pressures for husbands to remain with their wives and children, and for men and women to marry before having children,” he continues.
In other words, according to the Heritage Foundation, marriage equality (notice how they attempt to change the term to "redefining marriage") leads to more single-mother families mired in poverty.
Bear in mind that the Heritage Foundation offers no proof that marriage equality leads to single-mother families.
And that amazingly brazen leap of logic is why NOM, the Heritage Foundation, and those who support their endeavors against marriage equality are losing the fight.
I long for the day when these people actually pick up a 5th grade science textbook and try to gain the most basic understanding of the scientific method. I think I was 10 when I learned that in order for a scientist to make a conclusion about something, you had to STUDY IT. You can't study something else. You have to actually study the thing you want to make conclusions about. Why is that such a difficult concept?
ReplyDeleteI suppose I shouldn't really be surprised. This is, after all, coming from a movement that considers the Regnerus study the "gold standard". I left a comment on the post that called it the gold standard and tried to explain that making conclusions about same-sex families from the Regnerus study was equivalent to making conclusions about people who live in China by studying Chinese Americans who take vacations in China.
If these people want to say that the Bible is the only book that matters, that's one thing. It's when they try to play scientist and make a mockery out of my profession that they really get under my skin.
Seems like there would be fewer single mother families if Men and Women actually had to plan for children, rather than just making mistakes that ruin everyone involved.
ReplyDeleteBehaviors that contribute to poverty and poor outcomes for children may also hinder the formation of stable relationships. So, if a failing single-mother family acquired a husband, they would probably become a failing two-parent family. The assumption of quality in male presence is hugely wishful thinking. The really heartbreaking issue with single parent families, and this is global, is the number of fathers who have abandoned their families, or who will. If these folks really cared about marriage, they'd focus on how to encourage men to be good husbands and fathers.
ReplyDeleteYes, they are right. Single parent households are less stable than two parent households. What exactly is their point?
ReplyDeleteI'm sure some other factors play a role too, such as income disparity between men and women and lack of proper healthcare coverage for women, but that just means people should be pushing to fix those things.
So, again, what exactly is their point here?
I always find it fascinating what they think mothers, specifically, or fathers, specifically provide to a child that a same sex couple can't provide? They never quite say, but they're somehow CERTAIN that an all male or all female couple is somehow missing some vital ingredient.
ReplyDeleteI look over my own hetero family and don't see what they're talking about. Both my parents could cook, both cleaned, both did laundry, drove us where we needed to go, changed diapers, etc. My mother was quite capable with the lawnmower, and knows more about how cars work than my father.
Neither of my parents attempted to model, let alone enforce traditional gender roles. My brother (a heterosexual!) and I were both taught to be respectful, law-abiding, good-natured, compassionate, honest, and hard-working PEOPLE.
Wait, two men getting married is going to create more poverty stricken single-mother households?! Two women getting married wouldn't have any more chance of that then a man and a woman getting married. *so confused* why exactly are they always linking marriage to children. Tons of people have children without being married and others get married without having children. I don't get what the one has to do with the other. You can be a fabulous parent and a lousy spouse and vice versa - regardless of the sex of your partner. SIGH. Can't wait for this ridiculousness to be over - glad I live in Canada, we figured this out already.
ReplyDeleteAs usual, they're trying to blame gay people for all of the straight people who behave badly.
ReplyDelete