Baron: It is not merely an argument, it is a fact. Psychologically and emotionally children are more balanced when they are raised by their biological parents. Naturally, this would include one man and one woman and exclude any same-sex couples, since same-sex couples cannot produce children.
I’m not surprised that you know kids raised by non-traditional parents who you feel turned out “superbly; but define “superbly” for me. Are the children missing important developmental “building blocks” because of their environment? Science says yes.
I have intentionally focused my argument on psychology and sociology and left my personal feelings out of it. I believe you can make an air tight case against re-defining marriage based purely on psychology and sociology. I have tried to do that here.
Your statement about “perpetuating inequality” assumes gay parents are entitled to raise children, and you haven’t proven that point.
My assertion is simple:
2 non-biological (including same-sex) parents is not equal to 2 biological (by default includes 1 man and 1 woman) in terms of raising a healthy, well-balanced child.
I also assume said parents are functioning contributors to society in that they have jobs, aren’t physically abusive, are not addicted to drugs, etc. I specify this because I want to avoid the, “What about really dysfunctional biological parents vs. a gay couple?” argument, which I believe is weak. If any child is orphaned because their parents are deceased or choosing not to be in the picture, that child starts out with a major disadvantage, so it seems logical to me to do our best to give them the closest thing possible to their natural parents. Again, that implies 1 man and 1 woman.
