Here's the full segment from Meet the Press where DeMint yet again makes the long debunked argument that children are only best raised within a hetero household.
http://thinkprogress.org/...
DeMint said the court had privileged “the desires of adults” over “the best environment for children,” arguing that heterosexual marriage is “the environment where children can thrive and succeed.” Maddow immediately pointed out that this argument ignores the children of same-sex couples, who have up til now been treated as second-class citizens under the law:
Justice Kennedy addressed that issue specifically in his ruling. He says that by denying marriage rights to same-sex couples who have kids, You’re humiliating and demeaning those kids. By denying their families equal protection under the law by the parents who are raising them and who love them and who make their family. So we can put it in the interests of children, but I think that cuts both ways. And the ruling cuts against that argument. I mean, gay people exist. There’s nothing we can do in public policy can do to make more of us exist or less of us exist. And you guys for a generation have argued that public policy ought to demean gay people as a way of expressing disapproval of the fact that we exist. But you don’t make any less of us exist, you are just arguing for more discrimination. And more discrimination doesn’t make straight people’s lives any better.
The fact is that DeMint is wrong. If your goal is to do what's best "For the Kids", then that would lead you to allow more people who want to be in a committed relationship while raising kids to DO SO, rather than less.
The problem is that DeMint doesn't seem to realize that the data that he is citing, which indicates that stable household's are better for children and those racked with strife - doesn't specifically say that the stable relationships were Hetero.
http://thinkprogress.org/...
And more specifically from the APA.
http://www.apa.org/...
Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly in their approaches to child rearing (Patterson, 2000; Tasker, 1999). Members of gay and lesbian couples with children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners (Patterson, 2000, 2004a). The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation (Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children.
...The picture that emerges from research is one of general engagement in social life with peers, parents, family members, and friends. Fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no scientific support. Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents.
Tony Perkins Ralph Reed then goes on the play the "victim card", claiming that those who oppose same-sex marriage are being called "bigots". They're not being called that by Maddow, she said they were "discriminating", which they are.
But I say Yeah, well, some of them are bigots. If you believe in a factually false argument - that gay-marriages are some kind of threat to children and or straight-marriage - regardless of the facts, yes that's a biased and bigoted position. Policies implemented based on those beliefs, are discriminatory.
It doesn't have to be based on hatred. It doesn't have to be based on fear. It simply be a matter of Confirmation Bias, which denies facts, reality and basic human fairness in favor of what someone wants to believe for their on self-aggrandizement.
Conservative Christians want to believe that their straight marriages are better than same-sex marriages because - well - because they do. Even when they aren't. The blather they make up to "prove" that they are, is just - blather.
Also, the claim that the "fundamental definition of marriage" in various religions, particularly Christianity is also wrong. Multiple wives is an option in certain sects of both Christianity and Islam. Marriage in the Bible is not about Love and not about Children, it's a financial transaction.
For example there was King Solomon:
And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.
And King David.
King David had eight wives and at least ten concubines. His wives are listed in 2 Samuel 3:2-5, but the list is missing two wives - the first one, Michal, and the last one, Bathsheba. Their names in order are:
Michal
Ahinoam
Abigail
Maacah
Haggith
Abital
Eglah
Bathsheba
So the thing that the so-called Christians claim has always been the law of religion - and by the way we
do not Live in a Christian Caliphate where religious doctrine is the law of the land - isn't really how's it been throughout all time and space.
Also, we should think of the children.
Vyan