Also, even if the studies had turned out differently, "we shouldn't allow members of demographic group X to marry and have children because some studies found their children are statistically slightly worse off than the children of non-members" is an argument you could apply to so many different values of X that at some point you might as well give up on marriage and children entirely.
There’s such irony in all these activists, 90%+ of whom would consider themselves pro-life, advocating for preventing lesbian and gay couples from having children. They are literally saying people like me (conceived with IVF by lesbian parents) should not exist.
Many in the pro-life crowd are also pro-2nd amendment, which doesn't make sense, and don't seem to give a shit about the kid after it is born, which doesn't make sense.
In addition to the many other problems pointed out in this article, Greater Than's unstated assumption that a child's birth parents are best for them is baffling. Bad parents are extremely common! Adoptive parents at least have the guarantee that some agency has looked over their history and general household situation to confirm that nothing is obviously wrong. This is not true for biological parents!
Absolutely. The point that biology (and implicitly, heterosexuality) is not a safeguard against unhappiness or neglect or abuse in family life also becomes relevant in conversations around divorce, which I don't really touch on here but am hoping to cover in the future.
Glad to see more folks pointing this out! For those who are interested in a more thorough review of the literature on this topic, I have a post on my substack (which reaches the same conclusion as the author’s here).
"children do best in a stable, dual-income home" sounds like a claim that it is bad to have a parent stay home rather than earning an income. I assume you are not actually claiming this or you'd elaborate at all.
I'm curious to know the response to this question as well, but I would be surprised if the 2 populations were very far off from each other - and if we're talking America, I'd assume the 2 income household would fare better than the one-parent-stays-at-home scenario (because so much more American survival depends on wage income than European countries). But probably only marginally. Just having more than 1 adult who is responsible for the care and maintenance of a child seems to be the huge differentiator
I... don't like this article, I'm not going to lie. I found myself a bit annoyed by the accusations of hypocrisy being treated as harmful to Faust's argument, and then when I read "Still, hypocrisy is a bad argument," this did not alleviate my annoyance.
Similarly, phrases like "then by Faust’s own child-centered logic, it follows that" feel especially cheap. I suspect that if Faust were given the chance to respond, she would not agree that 'it follows that'.
I say this while agreeing with every object-level point raised in the article. Obviously marriage is better for children, we should encourage stable gay couples to adopt or do surrogacy, etc
but, well. this magazine is named "the argument". and it wasn't talking about argument in the sense of a claim, or a contention. it was talking about an argument in the sense of a disagreement between two people getting hashed out.
from the very first piece published in this outlet: "The Argument was also born out of my long-held belief that direct engagement between people who disagree can be a generative and entertaining project. Too much analysis and criticism is writers talking past each other and a preference for subtweeting, allusion, and you-know-what-I-mean. Not here."
I do not believe this piece meets the high standard for argumentative, good faith discourse that is described in that paragraph. (edit: I do, however, believe that a very similar article to this one could have made the same point, while meeting that high standard.)
Also, even if the studies had turned out differently, "we shouldn't allow members of demographic group X to marry and have children because some studies found their children are statistically slightly worse off than the children of non-members" is an argument you could apply to so many different values of X that at some point you might as well give up on marriage and children entirely.
You don't see these people putting in a lot of work to prevent unwed teenagers from having children. Kind of giving the game away.
There’s such irony in all these activists, 90%+ of whom would consider themselves pro-life, advocating for preventing lesbian and gay couples from having children. They are literally saying people like me (conceived with IVF by lesbian parents) should not exist.
Such a good point. Just one of many tensions between pronatalists concerned about the existential threat of declining birth rates and religious conservatives pushing to restrict reproductive technologies... Very interesting piece on this phenomenon in the Economist: https://www.economist.com/1843/2025/11/06/make-america-procreate-again-among-the-maga-fertility-fanatics
Many in the pro-life crowd are also pro-2nd amendment, which doesn't make sense, and don't seem to give a shit about the kid after it is born, which doesn't make sense.
In addition to the many other problems pointed out in this article, Greater Than's unstated assumption that a child's birth parents are best for them is baffling. Bad parents are extremely common! Adoptive parents at least have the guarantee that some agency has looked over their history and general household situation to confirm that nothing is obviously wrong. This is not true for biological parents!
Absolutely. The point that biology (and implicitly, heterosexuality) is not a safeguard against unhappiness or neglect or abuse in family life also becomes relevant in conversations around divorce, which I don't really touch on here but am hoping to cover in the future.
Glad to see more folks pointing this out! For those who are interested in a more thorough review of the literature on this topic, I have a post on my substack (which reaches the same conclusion as the author’s here).
https://unboxingpolitics.substack.com/p/same-sex-parenting-examining-the?r=27wzgp&utm_medium=ios
I really appreciate you sharing this! Great to get a vote of confidence from someone clearly so familiar with the literature.
"children do best in a stable, dual-income home" sounds like a claim that it is bad to have a parent stay home rather than earning an income. I assume you are not actually claiming this or you'd elaborate at all.
Super interesting. As I understand Melissa Kearney's argument, her defense of marriage extends beyond the economic premium of a dual-income to other non-economic benefits, such as stability and increased parental time with children: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/key-takeaways-from-the-discussion-on-the-two-parent-privilege/
I'm curious to know the response to this question as well, but I would be surprised if the 2 populations were very far off from each other - and if we're talking America, I'd assume the 2 income household would fare better than the one-parent-stays-at-home scenario (because so much more American survival depends on wage income than European countries). But probably only marginally. Just having more than 1 adult who is responsible for the care and maintenance of a child seems to be the huge differentiator
I... don't like this article, I'm not going to lie. I found myself a bit annoyed by the accusations of hypocrisy being treated as harmful to Faust's argument, and then when I read "Still, hypocrisy is a bad argument," this did not alleviate my annoyance.
Similarly, phrases like "then by Faust’s own child-centered logic, it follows that" feel especially cheap. I suspect that if Faust were given the chance to respond, she would not agree that 'it follows that'.
I say this while agreeing with every object-level point raised in the article. Obviously marriage is better for children, we should encourage stable gay couples to adopt or do surrogacy, etc
but, well. this magazine is named "the argument". and it wasn't talking about argument in the sense of a claim, or a contention. it was talking about an argument in the sense of a disagreement between two people getting hashed out.
from the very first piece published in this outlet: "The Argument was also born out of my long-held belief that direct engagement between people who disagree can be a generative and entertaining project. Too much analysis and criticism is writers talking past each other and a preference for subtweeting, allusion, and you-know-what-I-mean. Not here."
I do not believe this piece meets the high standard for argumentative, good faith discourse that is described in that paragraph. (edit: I do, however, believe that a very similar article to this one could have made the same point, while meeting that high standard.)