In his Oct. 14 Point of View “ Opposing gay marriage in principle,” Sanford Kessler told us that, “The strongest argument for maintaining the traditional definition of marriage is that it strengthens the view that, all things being equal, children flourish best when raised by a mother and a father and, better yet, by their biological parents.” I think that I know what Kessler means, but why anyone should be concerned about “strengthening the view” is beyond me.
As for Kessler’s assertion that “children flourish best when raised by a mother and a father,” where is his evidence for this sweeping claim? And then Kessler defeats his own argument by saying that, “of course, all things are rarely equal,” because same-sex parents and single parents often are excellent parents, and heterosexual parents often are not.
As for Kessler’s claim that “children flourish best when raised by ... their biological parents” I suppose that it’s just too bad for adopted children.
I strongly suspect that children raised in extreme poverty, or by parents who are addicted to drugs or alcohol, or by parents prone to violence are in much more danger than children raised by same-sex partners. People who are sincerely concerned about the welfare of children should first address those problems of dysfunctional families.
Sign Up and Save
Get six months of free digital access to The News & Observer