W2

 In the first two weeks, I was not able to participate in class much. I commonly get sick around this time of year, however, this did not stop me from actively paying attention to the topics and subjects.

This topic for week 2 concerned me at first, and I was worried about how the discussion would go. That being said, I fully planned on participating and actively hearing out others and making my thoughts known if needed. I knew and understood the purpose of week 2's activity of reflecting and critiquing scientific studies and recognizing their flaws, however, I was worried about the potential segway this discussion could take.

I recognize and agree that the documents brought about arguing on behalf of same-sex marriage were largely flawed and often filler, however, I don't disagree with the outcome of the Court's decision. I was worried about potential discussions going the route of uncivilized emotions, rather than simple criticism of data. Now I was unable to be present on the day of the discussion sadly, however, I did feel a bit uncomfortable with the wordage and phrasing of the respective assignment. I think the nature of the assignment was pure and of no issue, but the wordage was borderline problematic and mixed useful lessons and underlying opinions.

I believe it is important to be able to separate one's emotions from their presentation in discussion. I don't think there is anyone able to perfect such an act, but it should be the goal in criticism and discussion to grow and learn, rather than break down and belittle. I think there were at least hints of disdain, instead of just criticism of the data and their studies; however, I also think there was an irresponsible rush of data collection for the Court.

I'm sure there wasn't much time to collect data to present to the court, and I'm sure the court wasn't going to wait for new lessons to be organized and completed before making a decision. What I'm saying is I'm not surprised the APA brief was full of holes and unreliable data, and while I'm not defending it, I don't think the intent was to purposely mislead.

Following the APA brief, we were shared a sort of counter-study, however, I think the counterstudy had issues in itself. A major part of the APA brief's issue was inconsistent data presentation. All the data was presented to prove that children were just as well off with same-sex couples as with opposite-sex couples, but there was no shortage of continuity issues. The shared article primarily presented data in opposition, but here is where my issue with it lies: the argument was that children adopted to same-sex couples did not equate to children born into traditional families. 

In case you don't see the hypocrisy, I'll walk through it. The primary issue of the APA brief was a misrepresentation of data. APA presented itself to hold information stating that children to same-sex couples were no different than hetero couples, but the supporting data shared didn't reliably express that. This shared study presented itself that children of same-sex couples were not as well off as traditional families, and it particularly talked about the parental bond. Here's my issue, obviously the children of same-sex couples were adopted; however, the study talked about the bonds of BIOLOGICAL parents being better off.

Again, I'm not saying the APA brief didn't have misleading information, but we were then shared a study to support the opposition, but it also has misleading information. You can't go and say that children bond better with traditional couples than same-sex couples and then compare the adopted children of one couple to the biological children of another. I hear a lot of about problems with adopted children and forming trust and attachment. Do you see where the problem lies?

Personally, I think the quality of the life of a child comes down to the bond with the parent and the happiness of the family. Obviously, some things outside of that can make things better like social-economic status, but a well-off kid financially maybe be emotionally impoverished. I don't think the sexual identity of the parent alone has much effect on the child, I think the issues the child may face is the societal problems. I work at an elementary school and kids are BRUTAL to each other, and those behavioral traits start and end with the parents. If you're hateful towards a group of people, your child is going to treat them how you do. Children learn best through modeling, and you're their example. 

If kids in the 2000s found out another kid's parents were gay, I think it would be easy to assume how that would go. If a kid who's being bullied for having gay parents is miserable, does that mean we should make it so John and Steve can't have kids, or should encourage compassion and acceptance in society? And with how many children are suffering in the foster system, I think quality people are what we need for those kids, regardless of who they love or how they love them.