Children of Same-Sex Couples Turn Out Just Fine
Researchers collected a number of scientific studies about how children of same-sex couples turn out and find no evidence that they are negatively affected.
One of the major arguments against same-sex marriage holds children in question: How do the children in these relationships turn out? Well, the scientific community has weighed in.
In a recent study looking at the collective literature on the issue, researchers led by associate professor Jimi Adams from the Department of Health and Behavioral Studies at CU Denver College write “that the literature on outcomes for children of same-sex parents is marked by scientific consensus that they experience 'no differences' compared to children from other parental configurations.”
This research comes at a crucial time where the U.S. Supreme Court is determining whether the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects marriage equality of same-sex partners. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the courts are presenting social science research to argue for and against same-sex marriage. For this particular study, it provides evidence that the children born of or adopted into these relationships suffer no disadvantages.
“I wanted to analyze the research from the past decades,” Adams said, “to determine if there was consensus amongst researchers about that effect.”
Adams and his team looked through peer-reviewed scientific records on the subject from the 1990s, finding a developing “[c]onsensus on outcomes for children of same-sex parents.” By 2000, researchers had reached an “overwhelming” consensus on the issue.
“I found overwhelming evidence that scientists agree that there is not a negative impact to children of same-sex couples.”
So why are people still so resistant? Former U.S. House Representative Barney Frank offers a suggestion, arguing that the ignorance underlying resistance to same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization is similar. In both cases, he says, reality will overcome prejudice and ultimately be adopted as the law of the land.
Former president of the ACLU Nadine Strossen discusses whether our society should always defend free speech rights, even for groups who would oppose such rights.
- Former ACLU president Nadine Strossen understands that protecting free speech rights isn't always a straightforward proposition.
- In this video, Strossen describes the reasoning behind why the ACLU defended the free speech rights of neo-Nazis in Skokie, Illinois, 1977.
- The opinions expressed in this video do not necessarily reflect the views of the Charles Koch Foundation, which encourages the expression of diverse viewpoints within a culture of civil discourse and mutual respect.
Want to be smarter than you were yesterday? Learn to have better conversations using these 3 design principles.
- What is a great conversation? They are the ones that leave us feeling smarter or more curious, with a sense that we have discovered something, understood something about another person, or have been challenged.
- There are 3 design principles that lead to great conversations: humility, critical thinking, and sympathetic listening.
- Critical thinking is the celebrated cornerstone of liberalism, but next time you're in a challenging and rewarding conversation, try to engage sympathetic listening too. Understanding why another intelligent person holds ideas that are at odds with your own is often more enlightening than merely hunting for logic errors.
A consortium of scientists and engineers have proposed that the U.S. and Mexico build a series of guarded solar, wind, natural gas and desalination facilities along the entirety of the border.
- The proposal was recently presented to several U.S. members of Congress.
- The plan still calls for border security, considering all of the facilities along the border would be guarded and connected by physical barriers.
- It's undoubtedly an expensive and complicated proposal, but the team argues that border regions are ideal spots for wind and solar energy, and that they could use the jobs and fresh water the energy park would create.
The reason one diet does not suit all may be found in our guts.