In today's Irish Times, John Murray, the chairman of the board of directors of the Iona Institute, takes issue with critics of their 'cherry-picking' of findings from various research papers on how well children fare in different family structures.
It demonstrates again the clear lack of logic in their stance against same-sex marriage, where they claim that that objection is not based on discrimination against homosexual couples. I had a previous post about this, but today's article clearly sets out the fallacy in Iona's argument. If they object to same-sex marriage because they believe the outcome for children is worse, then they must also object to adoption on the same grounds.
Indeed the language used in the Iona Institute's submission to the Constitutional Convention on marriage is offensive to adoptive families, using words such as 'your own parents' to equate to biological.
John Murray in his article says:
Does that paper [Child Trends Survey] say anything about children raised by same-sex couples? No, it doesn’t. Why doesn’t it? Child Trends itself gives the reason: “This Child Trends brief summarises research conducted in 2002, when neither same-sex parents nor adoptive parents were identified in large national surveys. Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn from this research about the well-being of children raised by same-sex parents or adoptive parents.”.....
The Iona Institute submission to the Constitutional Convention says about the Child Trends Survey report:
Note the various elements in the above summary. There are two parents. The parents are the
It's clear that the Iona Institute (and other opponents of same-sex marriage) oppose it on the grounds that marriage is 'child-centred' and children do better in a specific form of family structure. They believe same-sex marriage would produce worse outcomes for children, However, if their arguments are based on legislating for the ideal outcome it must follow that they oppose adoption on the same grounds. However, many religious organisations are involved in supporting adoptive families. There is a fatal logical flaw here. Not to mind an offensive attitude to adoptive families.
I should reveal an interest here by stating I am part of an adoptive family.
I'm an economist so many of these posts will be about economic issues. But since everyone is allowed a view on economics I am inclined to go beyond my profession to throw my tuppence ha'penny into other issues.