It is a great irony of democracy that some of the most contentious issues will be decided in part by electoral races that few were following closely. Yet that is precisely what may happen with the closely-contested and just-concluded California Attorney General’s race, where Kamala Harris edged out the Republican District Attorney from Los Angeles, Steve Cooley.
Mr. Cooley, unlike the current occupant Jerry Brown and unlike his opponent Ms. Harris, vowed to defend the ballot measure, Propostion 8, that was passed by the voters in 2008. Kamala Harris prevailed and has vowed to continue the now-Governor-elect Brown’s policies.
The problem stems from the fact that the actual defendant in the case is the State of California, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to defend the case or to appeal.
Toward that end, the attorneys for the appellants argued yesterday that they have standing as proponents of the Proposition 8 ballot measure, but offered no case precedent for that stance.
The most conservative judge on the panel argued, “My problem is, in fact, the governor’s and the attorney general’s actions have essentially nullified the considerable efforts that were made on behalf of the initiative.”
Judge Stephen Reinhardt called it “tossing in the towel.”
“That does not seem to be consistent with the initiative process,” he said.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt suggested asking the California Supreme Court to address the issue of state law, as to whether the Governor and Attorney General could effectively veto a ballot proposition by declining to appeal the legal judgment against it.
UC Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, who is analyzing Monday’s court arguments for The Times, told the Times: “This raises a possible outcome of today’s argument that no one has yet raised. It would mean that the case would go to the California Supreme Court to answer the question of California law on who has standing to defend an initiative, and then come back to the 9th Circuit.”
The LA Times had previously scolded the Governor and Attorney General.
On Monday, the Times wrote, “We agree with U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s ruling that found the proposition unconstitutional, and with his finding that gay men and lesbians have historically been targets of discrimination. As such, they are entitled to the highest level of protection from the courts under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution against new laws that seek to strip them of their rights — including the right to marry.”
However, they added, “The governor refused to defend the initiative; so did Jerry Brown, attorney general and soon-to-be governor. In our view, they were wrong: No matter how much we dislike Proposition 8 — and we dislike it intensely — it was passed by a majority of the state’s voters, who have a right to expect that it will be defended in court.”
The Times notes this may diminish the value of any ruling by the court.
“Had California’s top officials defended Proposition 8, their participation would have ensured that the appellate court would consider the constitutional issues,” the Times wrote. “If the measure’s supporters are found to lack legal standing, same-sex marriage will win the day in California. But this would make for a less-than-satisfying victory. The rights of gay and lesbian couples deserve to be argued — and upheld — on their merits rather than on a legal technicality.”
At some level, I suppose it is a shame that there is a real possibility that the Proposition 8 issue dies here. After all, had it gone to the Supreme Court there was a realistic chance that Justice Anthony Kennedy would push through a precarious 5-4 majority ruling invalidating Proposition 8. There is perhaps somewhat less of a chance he would have gone far enough to make it unconstitutional nationwide.
However, for thousands of same-sex couples, many who are wed and many more who wait to be wed, do they really care how they got the right to do it? Does it make them less married if they did it by legal technicality?
The world is moving fast. A poll at the end of the election by the LA Times/ USC showed by a 3 to 1 margin, more Californians support some legal recognition for gay relationships, compared to those who favor no legal status.
If Proposition 8 were on the ballot today, it would fail according to that same poll.
The pace of society is moving quickly. The younger generations are no longer threatened by gay relationships. And quickly, Californians are losing their fear as well.
Proposition 8 did not win on the merits, it won based on scare-tactics about gay teachers indoctrinating students into the gay lifestyle. How ludicrous. It may have worked two years ago, it might not work next time.
If Proposition 8 is invalidated, we will have another ballot measure, but this time it will be in 2012, four years later. There may be no chance for it to pass by that point.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“The pace of society is moving quickly. The younger generations are no longer threatened by gay relationships. And quickly, Californians are losing their fear as well.”
The pace of society is moving quickly. The concern for many is that it is moving in the wrong direction. Frankly, the younger generations have less of a clue about what constitutes a well-constructed life than the generations that preceded them. American liberalism – the mindset that central control should guarantee outcomes and force acceptance of every artistically-designed lifestyle – has demonized traditional families to the point that its extinction in a very tangible possibility. Just check out what the average young, politically-celebrated, college-educated liberal gay feminist has to say about Sarah Palin and her family (it is far beyond just politics).
I don’t think those that voted for Prop-8 fear gay lifestyle. The attempts of the proponents to paint supporters of Prop-8 as homophobic bigots failed expect for the career destruction of a few targeted people. What voters disapproved of is gay marriage being set equal to traditional marriage. It is not. It is different. We should be honest about this fact, and it should be part of the fabric the campaign for acceptance… instead of the fear-of-shame Gestapo tactics used by gay-marriage proponents to “rat-out” all opponents as being anti-gay and bigoted.
Personally, I think we are probably screwed. We will look back decades from now and ask ourselves how and why we lost so much of what made our US culture and society so great. Modern progressivism – especially the California version – it is backed by a liberal media and entertainment industry that carries more populist influence than Hitler’s state-run propaganda machine. Add an army of attorneys and the free labor of hundreds of thousands co-opted public employee union members and we get a polarizing and divisive engine of force-fed social engineering.
Other than the lack of substantive discussion about the long term social implications and lack of honesty about the difference; it is primarily this “in your face”, media-legal-hostile approach that has me turned off and against the gay marriage movement. Frankly, given these tactics, I am convinced many are pushing for this more out of anger or some psychological need of acceptance than they are for other more virtuous reasons. The message is “we support love and same sex people who love each other, and if you disagree we will destroy you”.
I can accept change… honest change… change where we openly discuss any and all tradeoffs and cost-benefits; but not hostile, angry and forced acceptance from a side of society that has yet to demonstrate they have a clue about how to effectively govern.
Personally, I think we are probably screwed. We will look back decades from now and ask ourselves how and why we lost so much of what made our US culture and society so great. Modern progressivism – especially the California version – it is backed by a liberal media and entertainment industry that carries more populist influence than Hitler’s state-run propaganda machine.
The line of thinking that you follow has been around for a long time — that society is falling apart, that we’ve lost our greatness, that I fear for the young people these days, that society is in chaos, for one reason or another, etc. I read an op-ed from the 1920’s that suggested it. I remember similar talk in the 1970’s. I think of it as the Garden of Eden position — that things were perfect to begin with, but have been going to hell in a hand basket ever since.
What makes your argument different?
Can you offer examples of comparable contemporary societies that are further along in their decline, and are going in a direction that you fear we are?
Well stated, Jeff. Others have stated it as follows:
The Lessons of History[1]
Intellect is a vital force of history, but it can also be a dissolvent and destructive power. Out of every hundred new ideas, ninety-nine or more will probably be inferior to the traditional responses which they propose to replace. No one man or woman, however brilliant or well informed, can come in one lifetime to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss the customs or institutions of his or her society, for these are the wisdom of generations after centuries of experiment in the laboratory of history.
Therefore, the conservative who resists change is as valuable as the radical who proposes it-perhaps as much more valuable as roots are more vital than grafts. It is good that new ideas should be heard, for the sake of the few that can be used; but it is also good that new ideas should be compelled to go through the mill of objection and opposition. This is the trial heat that innovations must survive before being allowed to enter the human race. It is good that the old should resist the young, and that the young should prod the old. Out of this tension, as out of the strife of the sexes and the classes, comes a creative tensile strength, a stimulated development, a secret and basic unity and movement of the whole.
—————
[1]Durant, W. and A. Durant. 1968. The Lessons of History, Simon and Schuster, New York, N.Y. 117p. (citation (pp.35-36) edited for continuity and inclusiveness without altering content).
Jeff Boone makes some very cogent and valid points.
My personal concern is that marriage as a traditional institution is crumbling, which I see as a very bad thing (it needs to be left alone). The Hollywood lifestyle of sexual experimentation of all kinds, unfettered sex outside marriage, no commitment, is becoming the norm. Young people are opting not to marry anymore – why bother they say? They do not see any value in being in a committed marriage. And as a result, we are going to have a generation of children growing up insecure, commitment-phobic, and lacking a sense of integrity.
Change is not always a good thing. Recent statistics are showing college students to be more narcisstic – not a good trend. But by not promoting traditional marriage, and its ideal of committing for life, aren’t we teaching kids to be more narcisstic?
That said, I also wrestle with the paradoxical problem of equal rights for all, and that most definitely includes gays. If society does not permit gay marriage, then there must be a system of domestic partnerships which does in fact give equal rights. From what I have heard, the current system of domestic partnerships lacks in equality in many respects. I don’t know if that is true or not. If it is true, then it would have to change in my mind, a change that would be for the better IMHO.
But I do think the way in which Prop 8 has been handled is very troubling and sets a dangerous precedent. The system has been “gamed” by a minority, which does not bode well for other propositions pushed by other minority special interest groups. I agree with the LA Times here – the AG should have defended Prop 8 as the will of the electorate. Then let Prop 8 be tested on constitutional grounds, and let the chips fall where they may. When you win by cheating, it is a hollow victory, and corrupts the entire system. It also delegitamizes the “win”.
My fervent hope (I guess I’m ever the eternal optimist) is that I am wrong. I would like to think the world will evolve slowly to a better place for everyone to live in. But I have a sneaking suspicion we are going to see some very nasty bumps and setbacks along the way because of some bad decisions we as a society have chosen to make…
“Proposition 8 did not win on the merits, it won based on scare-tactics about gay teachers indoctrinating students into the gay lifestyle. How ludicrous. It may have worked two years ago, it might not work next time.”
The above statement is pure conjecture. Polling on redefining the meaning of marriage to include same-sex unions cannot be relied upon when prevailing political correctness labels anyone who opposes such a change as a homophobic bigot. The CA voters offered their decision anonymously on this issue known TWICE at the ballot box.
Correction: narcissistic
Another correction (my fingers are working faster than my brain this morning) – delegitimize
Nice quote Steve Hayes…
To davisite2 – very good point!!!
Steve Hayes: thanks for sharing that. I will save it to my archives. It resonates.
“Can you offer examples of comparable contemporary societies that are further along in their decline, and are going in a direction that you fear we are?”
wdf1: I don’t like alarmists and conspiracy theorists, but you only need to do a bit of reading on the rise and fall of other great societies to recognize where bad history may repeat itself. From a current perspective, I would point out that there are many more modern examples of countries, ideologies and cultures providing their populations much less freedom and copious levels of misery and suffering. I think the conventional wisdom should be that our quality and standards of living are much more tenuous than our actions would suggest we understand.
Progressives, I think, tend to feel there is much wrong that needs to be righted… and, I think, fail to consider how much good is at risk of being lost. Ultimately, for all complex systems to survive and thrive there is a need for balance and optimization. We should be living in the gray areas, not the black and white. I don’t agree with extreme religious conservatives that homosexuality is deviant and immoral. I also don’t agree that gay marriage is equal to traditional marriage. However, I do expect an open, honest and objective debate about the pros and cons of each in terms of the great American experience and future success.
If you want a more tangible example, I would say it is not looking too good in ultra-liberalized old Europe.
JB: “If you want a more tangible example, I would say it is not looking too good in ultra-liberalized old Europe.”
Point well taken…
Frankly, the younger generations have less of a clue about what constitutes a well-constructed life than the generations that preceded them.
I disagree. In my opinion my children and their generation have broader interests, more interaction with people of different backgrounds, and are much more tolerant than my generation or those preceding mine.
We will look back decades from now and ask ourselves how and why we lost so much of what made our US culture and society so great.
What do you believe made our culture and society great? What is missing from that? And how does denying rights to a particular sub-set of our society further its greatness? To me this is a simple issue of rights.
It is good that new ideas should be heard, for the sake of the few that can be used; but it is also good that new ideas should be compelled to go through the mill of objection and opposition.
Certainly. It is good, to me, that a majority of Americans (in many states, anyway) no longer thinks same-sex behavior should be criminalized, or that homosexuals should be prohibited from various fields of employment. It wasn’t so long ago that Californians seriously considered a ballot initiative that would have banned them from teaching. Were I homosexual, I’d be pretty frustrated at the pace of change in arriving at the new idea that homosexuals are citizens with full rights.
“….marriage as a traditional institution is crumbling, which I see as a very bad thing.”
This is a good argument for banning divorce. In fact, one of the appeal judges said that just last night during arguments. But it’s not a very compelling argument for banning gay marriage.
The family is indeed falling apart. According to NYT roughly 40% of children in this country are born out of wedlock. I don’t have good data but I’m going to go out on a limb and guess most of the parents of these children are straight.
I’d urge folks to read Ross Douhat’s Op-Ed piece in yesterdays’ NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/opinion/06douthat.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=opinion) which was brilliant. (I often don’t agree with him, but he always makes me think; I know what most other NYT columnists are gong to say before I read their column).
The bottom line is that we are seeing radical changes in our culture, but its brought on more by the increasing disparities in income and education than any differences on gay marriage vs straight marriage (or abortion for that matter). Divorce rates among affluent people have dropped and they’ve increased amoung lower income groups (if they get married at all).
Douhat knew well that the trial in California would be big news. He has a larger point.
The main division in the US is not between gays and straights. Its about income, education, opportunity and social class. And no I don’t have any easy quick fixes or sound bites. To some extent we are stuck with this and it will define our politics much more than gay marriage.
“I disagree. In my opinion my children and their generation have broader interests, more interaction with people of different backgrounds, and are much more tolerant than my generation or those preceding mine.”
I’m not as up with youth as you are. Although I would say that they are more creative than past generations.
They are also more narcissistic, more prone to selfishness, more entitled, less civil, more pop-culture savvy-but less real-culture savvy (especially American culture), wear more hookerwear and gangstawear, want it now, expect no behavior to be punished or to be seen as bad behavior, do not want to work as hard, are less independent-but expect more freedom, expect more things to be handed to them and more things done for them, expect easy wealth or legislated outcomes, take longer to become self-sufficient adults, don’t have a perspective of the costs and sacrifices that came before them to get them all the freedoms they enjoy today, have a weakened moral compass, have less connection to family and enterprise and more to nanny government, have had their wits corrupted by political correctness gone wild.
Of course there are exceptions. Also, I recognize that most generations before me have had a similar concern and perspective about American youth. However, I think beginning with the baby boomer children; these adult concerns have been validated.
“What do you believe made our culture and society great?”
Many things, but related to this topic: Greater focus and protections of traditional families; greater focus and protection of American culture; greater focus on increasing opportunity to compete instead of legislating outcome.
Of course there are exceptions.
Yes. My kids are perfect. It’s everyone else’s kids that are the problem.
“Yes. My kids are perfect.”
LOL! Mine too! Well… almost.
“This raises a possible outcome of today’s argument that no one has yet raised. It would mean that the case would go to the California Supreme Court to answer the question of California law on who has standing to defend an initiative, and then come back to the 9th Circuit.”
This is going to be a most difficult problem for the CA Supreme Court as it was never envisioned that the AG and governor would or could just ignore their oath of office to defend our CA constitution(found valid unanimously by the CA Supreme Court). The CA AG is the obvious party to have standing in the 9th to defend the CA constitution. The CA Supreme Court already did reject an emergency appeal concerning Brown’s refusal to carry out his oath of office. I believe this was a three-judge panel and we were never privy to any argument or who made up this panel. A full hearing of the Supreme Court on this matter,IMO, will likely have a different outcome. The Supreme Court unanimously acknowledged the primacy of the CA voters over the Court when they validated the Prop 8 constitutional amendment. It would make little sense for them now to propose that the CA Attorney General has the supreme power to decide whether to defend the CA constitution.
“….would go to the California Supreme Court to answer the question of California law on who has standing to defend an initiative, and then come back to the 9th Circuit.”
Dean Chemerinsky’s statement is inaccurate on its face as this is not defending an initiative but rather a valid portion of the CA constitution.
The US Federal courts have their own quite restrictive criteria as to standing and it is not in the province of the States.
Don Shor: “Yes. My kids are perfect.”
Jeff Boone: LOL! Mine too! Well… almost.
I’m now reminded why I actually chose to live in Davis. May their good examples rub off.
E.R. Musser: “….marriage as a traditional institution is crumbling, which I see as a very bad thing.”
Don Shor: This is a good argument for banning divorce. In fact, one of the appeal judges said that just last night during arguments. But it’s not a very compelling argument for banning gay marriage.
Or a good argument for legitimizing same-sex marriage. It pains me to watch same-sex parents in town whom I know reasonably well, who are great parents, come up short from having full legitimate rights and benefits granted to “normal” married couples. It leaves a shadow of shame at some level in suggesting the notion that they aren’t a real family, and they aren’t really a genuine loving couple.
Ted Olson’s argument for same-sex marriage is as cogent and persuasive a case as I can find:
[url]http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/08/the-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage.html[/url]
So much discussion for upholding Prop 8 is because that’s the way it has been, that it’s really about procreation, and that kids must have two genders of parents. There are way too many exceptions to adhere to those reasons.
I meant to add that if Prop. 8 is ultimately upheld, then I think marriage will be further viewed as a bogus tradition by many younger citizens.
JB: “If you want a more tangible example, I would say it is not looking too good in ultra-liberalized old Europe.”
Point well taken…
Please explain.
“The Hollywood lifestyle of sexual experimentation of all kinds, unfettered sex outside marriage, no commitment, is becoming the norm. Young people are opting not to marry anymore – why bother they say? They do not see any value in being in a committed marriage. And as a result, we are going to have a generation of children growing up insecure, commitment-phobic, and lacking a sense of integrity.”
Ok, just how does preventing people who want to make the commitment and get married help counteract trend, if indeed it is true?
The current generation of twenty-somethings has no ambition, no drive, and lacks the intestinal fortitude to overcome the barriers that stand in their way. All they ever do is whine about how difficult their lives are and demonstrate no understanding of what constitutes an honest days work. Furthermore, most of these Gen-“Y” grandchildren of the greatest generation have no sense of respect for what their grandparents fought so hard to attain. These ungrateful souls are, dare I say, parasites on the system and have become so spoiled as to expect incessant positive feedback and can sparsely function without being instantly gratified.
It is indeed sad that this current generation of twenty-somethings has taken for granted all the strides that have been made toward equality, and clearly lacks the direction to be able to achieve anything near what their ancestors accomplished. It leads one to wonder how our country will ever survive, let alone thrive. After all, one mustn’t look further than the evening news to find incessant promiscuity and debauchery among our youth to know that the entire moral fabric of our nation has disappeared.
“I meant to add that if Prop. 8 is ultimately upheld, then I think marriage will be further viewed as a bogus tradition by many younger citizens. “
I don’t get the logic here, but even if I did, I would not agree unless there were real irresolvable material differences between the legal use and definition of marriage and civil union. I don’t know of any reasons why civil unions cannot provide equal legal status, do you?
“So much discussion for upholding Prop 8 is because that’s the way it has been, that it’s really about procreation, and that kids must have two genders of parents. There are way too many exceptions to adhere to those reasons. “
Take any traditional married husband and wife. Now take a gay couple that wants to marry. All things being equal… except for procreation and child rearing… they are not equal. That does not mean they are less or more… just not the same; and because they are not the same they are culturally and socially worthy of different labels.
With all due respect to the great gay parents out there, as a traditional father I spend a great deal of time teaching my two boys how to be good men: how to behave; how to treat women… the subtle and not so subtle lessons passed down. Joseph Campbell named this type of thing mythology and uncovered the commonality of most cultures and societies doing similar things to ensure the growth of well-functioning adults. How does a gay female couple connect with a male child and help him develop into a well-functioning man? How does a gay male couple help a girl child develop into a well functioning woman? Again, all other things being equal. When I ask this question, often I get the “it takes a village” answer. Fair enough, but then we would have to agree it would not be equal to a traditional marriage that did not require surrogate gender role models. All things being equal, maybe a gay parenting model is superior… I don’t believe so, but I don’t know. The only thing I do know is that it is a different model, and since it is different it should tolerate a different label… assuming equal legal status and protections.
AeroDeo: It is indeed sad that this current generation of twenty-somethings has taken for granted all the strides that have been made toward equality, and clearly lacks the direction to be able to achieve anything near what their ancestors accomplished.
And who was responsible for raising this current generation of “second-rate ingrates”?
Could share some about how your generation was shining model that others should follow?
Take any traditional married husband and wife. Now take a gay couple that wants to marry. All things being equal… except for procreation and child rearing… they are not equal.
Well, in saying “all things being equal”, you set too many conditions to be realistic.
One thing is that same-sex couples typically do not accidentally get pregnant, or as a result have to postpone career and life plans to raise this child. Same-sex couples are typically not aborting fetuses.
When same-sex couples decide to raise kids, it is typically a very intentional and well thought out choice compared to the product of many young, poor, hetersexual parents. There is a far greater chance for a same-sex couple to present stability in raising children.
The current generation of twenty-somethings has no ambition, no drive, and lacks the intestinal fortitude to overcome the barriers that stand in their way.
Hm. My twenty-somethings don’t even remotely resemble this description.
All they ever do is whine about how difficult their lives are and demonstrate no understanding of what constitutes an honest days work.
Three tours of duty in Iraq. Working and going to school.
no sense of respect for what their grandparents fought so hard to attain.
They admire and respect their grandparents, deceased and living, and make extra efforts to spend time with those who are still alive.
expect incessant positive feedback and can sparsely function without being instantly gratified.
Working on various cars over weeks and months, earning the money to pay for the parts to repair and get them running.
clearly lacks the direction to be able to achieve anything near what their ancestors accomplished.
1. Dean’s list at Columbia
2. Applying to UC to study psych; hoping to become a Ph.D.
incessant promiscuity and debauchery among our youth
Oh, give me a break. You are just offensive.
… it would not be equal to a traditional marriage that did not require surrogate gender role models.
Nor would any other marriage, hetero- or otherwise, that doesn’t involve procreation. Marriage as an institution has long outgrown its partial original basis in property rights or procreation. In fact, much of what people ascribe to marriage as its ‘traditional’ foundation is pretty modern. Women aren’t property any more, and lots of people who get married never intend to have babies. In our society, marriage simply seems to codify a process of serial monogamy, conferring rights to the individuals within that contract.
Again, the fact that it is ideal to have good same-sex role models is not a persuasive argument for restricting the rights of individuals.
“Well, in saying “all things being equal”, you set too many conditions to be realistic”
I don’t think so… Just assume the same or similar economics and education. Assume both couples plan ahead. Heck, even make the argument that both couples will adopt. Make your case with both sets of circumstances being equal and then tell me why you still think gay parents will be the same as, or better than if you think, traditional parents.
All things being equal, I would always chose a traditional mom and dad over a gay mom and mom, or dad and dad. I think most people would too.
Supporters of gay marriage always use the divorce rates and comparisons to dysfunctional, or single-parent, families. On the first point, I read that when adjusted for socio-economics, gay and straight divorce (or civil union disillusionment) rates are not materially different. If gays tended to stay together more than straight couples, I could accept the argument that this is better for raising children… because divorce sucks for kids. However, the comparison to dysfunctional or single-parent families is just so transparently stupid it is breathtaking. If we are going to make that argument, then it needs to be a dysfunctional or single gay parent household compared to a dysfunctional or single straight parent household.
“Nor would any other marriage, hetero- or otherwise, that doesn’t involve procreation.”
Fine – well not fine, because that morphing of the institution of marriage – beyond the historical cultural standards of intent as an effective means of ensuring a supply of new tribe members – will ensure Western cultures will become extinct… supplanted by the cultures in the Mid East, Africa and South America. The birth rate in Spain is 1.15%. In Yemen it is 6.02%. It takes about 2% to sustain a population.
There are alarming new statistics on the number of young educated American women announcing they plan to not have any children because they want to pursue their career and travel. Good for them… except when they are in their late 30s frantically looking for a husband or a suitable donor… and their mid to late 40s wondering why they cannot conceive. Maybe by then they can consider a gay marriage and adoption.
However, I digress… the issue IS procreation and raising children. That is the difference. Are you suggesting that Prop-8 could be overturned if gays just agreed to be precluded from raising children after being married? I think you might be right. However, I don’t think that would go over well with the gay rights proponents.
Are you suggesting that Prop-8 could be overturned if gays just agreed to be precluded from raising children after being married?
This is a syllogistic interpretation of my argument, so I’ll just turn it around. Are you suggesting that anyone who is unable or unwilling to have children should be barred from marrying?
By the way, are you completely unacquainted with gay couples who are raising children?
All things being equal, I would always chose a traditional mom and dad over a gay mom and mom, or dad and dad. I think most people would too.
Unless one had a notably dysfunctional family environment, I think most folks ultimately appreciate whomever their loving parents were.
To get somewhere with this line of argument, I think you have to present some study that shows that same-sex parents are clearly harmful to the raising of a child. Such a study that isn’t connected to James Dobson in some way would likely have more credibility.
With all due respect to the great gay parents out there, as a traditional father I spend a great deal of time teaching my two boys how to be good men
Does this mean that the fact that someone is gay means they are not a ‘good man?’ What happens to your argument if one of your boys grows up and discovers that they are gay? Homosexuality is a biological fact, not something created by culture and upbringing. The fact that you are raising your sons to be ‘good men’ will not change their biology.
You sound like a very caring and loving father. Your children are lucky to have you. The same can be said for the children of loving and caring same sex couples. My question to you is how does the marriage of a same sex couple in any way alter the value of your marriage to your wife?
My read of several analysis by law professors suggest that this will be sent back to the CA Supreme Court by the 9th circuit,asking the CA Supreme Court to inform them what CA law has to say about who has standing in the current situation. It is suggested that this will take 6-12 months and this, IMO, will well suit the 9th in delaying the serious political “heat” that will accompany their decision.
“By the way, are you completely unacquainted with gay couples who are raising children? “
No, I am only partially unacquainted.
However, I don’t understand the relevance of the question. Are you suggesting that gays are super-parents and if I was completely acquainted I might have a different opinion? I suppose there might be something I am missing lacking enough experience, but I doubt it. Last I checked gays are just people too. I know a few and I have not spotted any antennae.
I will give you this… if the child turns out to be gay; I think gay parents would tend to do a better job being a role model for the child as he or she develops. Also, if all other things are equal, I think any two-parent loving household is better than a one parent loving household.
My wife and I record and watch the TV show Modern Family. It includes a gay couple with an adopted Vietnamese baby. Eric Stonestreet won an Emmy last year for his role. It is a hilarious!
“My question to you is how does the marriage of a same sex couple in any way alter the value of your marriage to your wife? “
It doesn’t. That is not my argument.
“Does this mean that the fact that someone is gay means they are not a ‘good man?'”
No. I think you are missing my point. Let’s say you are the son of female gay couple raised in a loving household. You grow up around other hormone saturated boys. You may get in fights. You have trouble talking to girls. You don’t feel like you fit in with the other boys. Later you struggle to fit in as a young adult and don’t feel like the man you want to be. If you are lucky, you will have other male role models to help you solve all these life puzzles. However, most sons raised in a traditional loving household would rely on their father as a mentor.
My point is simply that gays cannot be equal to traditional parents in this case… again, assuming all other things are equal.
There is a movie starring Hugh Grant named “About A Boy”. The plot kind of illustrates my point.
“Unless one had a notably dysfunctional family environment, I think most folks ultimately appreciate whomever their loving parents were.”
I agree with this, but I have higher expectations for parenting. I have seen a lot of situations where loving parents raised kids that became very conflicted and unhappy adults needing copious therapy. Frankly, I am really surprised that more people don’t raise the issue of gender-role confusion as a higher-risk byproduct of gay parenting.
“Unless one had a notably dysfunctional family environment, I think most folks ultimately appreciate whomever their loving parents were.”
I agree with this, but I have higher expectations for parenting. I have seen a lot of situations where loving parents raised kids that became very conflicted and unhappy adults needing copious therapy. Frankly, I am really surprised that more people don’t raise the issue of gender-role confusion as a higher-risk byproduct of gay parenting.
Well, that is a personal hypothesis, meaning that it lacks backing of broad observation and objective measure. Also, there can be a lot of unrelated reasons why adults become unhappy and need therapy.
I also think part of reasonable parenting is recognizing where parents’ limits are, and figuring out how to supplement for those deficiencies, whatever they might be, by helping to foster other constructive relationships, introducing other activities, interests, and experiences.
Also, if all other things are equal, I think any two-parent loving household is better than a one parent loving household.
If this is your basis for not legalizing same-sex marriage, then you would also suggest that the government has an interest in determining if a heterosexual couple are fit as parents before issuing them a marriage license? If so, then that would be the ultimate demonstration of a nanny state.
It is reported that the lawyers against Prop 8 suggested to the court that a decision declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional could be limited to only the two CA counties where the action was initially filed. They would then be expecting Governor Brown and the new AG to extend this decision to all CA by executive action. The legal contortions that are being suggested to avoid taking this decision beyond CA’s borders into the entire 9th circuit’s jurisdiction, where it would meet with unparalleled political/populist resistance,erodes any legitimacy that this decision would have under those circumstances.
wdf1 & Don Shor:
My post was intended to be entirely satirical and illustrate the absurdity of some of the previous posts. My initial response, I feared, wouldn’t have shed much light on my position as it would have appeared that I was simply being defensive.
Apologies if I offended anyone; I’ll have to be less subtle when trying to emulate Jonathan Swift in the future. 🙂
I realize that there are always generational differences in the way the world is viewed, but I’m fed up with the “we’ll never be great again” mantra. This attitude is pure rhetoric bordering on fear mongering. Similarly, the sentiment that “the younger generations have less of a clue about what constitutes a well-constructed life than the generations that preceded them” is nothing more than age discrimination and a belief that “your” generation is somehow better than “mine”. Sorry, but the basis of this great nation is a concept known as freedom and I couldn’t care less about what others think constitutes a “well-constructed life”; I’ll make that determination on my own.
“Also, if all other things are equal, I think any two-parent loving household is better than a one parent loving household.
If this is your basis for not legalizing same-sex marriage”
I don’t like where this conversation seems to be heading. I only have one issue here… I support Prop-8 because I think traditional marriage and gay marriage are different when it comes to raising children. Sex orientation aside, I maintain a belief that men and women are wired differently and have different life experiences and orientations… and that society as a whole is better served having some separation of gender roles. I have been married almost 30 years and I think I am about half way to understanding the differences between how my wife thinks and how I think. We are different people, but we are also different because we are different genders.
Frankly, I have another and similar big problem with the public schools being 85% female teachers. I think the public education system has turned pro girl behavior and anti boy behavior and a contributing reason is that female teachers better understand and resonate with female students. Gender matters.
If I am forming the best marriage team for raising children, assuming all other things are equal (or similar), then a team of man-dad and woman-mom trumps all other team designs. It is better for childhood development, and because of that, it is better for society.
The political template is to make me feel emotional over teachers losing their jobs and gays not being able to marry. But, similar to my opinion about education, I care about the welfare of needing children more than I care about the welfare of the needy adults. Traditional marriage is a better model than gay unions as it relates to raising children. You will never convince me otherwise. But, I will not have a cow if Prop-8 is overturned and the term “marriage” becomes inclusive of gay unions. However, I will always consider gay marriage to be something less than traditional marriage for the reasons stated.
“I couldn’t care less about what others think constitutes a “well-constructed life”;
You should care since it will be these people that have to produce enough to support you in your old age.
“You should care since it will be these people that have to produce enough to support you in your old age.”
It is no one’s responsibility but MY OWN to ensure I have enough to live on when I retire; it’s called saving. Furthermore, your insinuation that “these people” won’t have the ability to produce/earn enough simply because their lifestyles differ from yours is baseless, not to mention arrogant.
“It is no one’s responsibility but MY OWN to ensure I have enough to live on when I retire”
I am not used to reading that type of response here. Bravo! I agree. What I meant, but said poorly, is that you need new people with a strong work ethic to keep the economy humming as the current generation of workers retires.
Here is a pretty good and balanced summary. I like that it points to baby boomer parents as responsible for creating the monster. http://www.quintcareers.com/Gen-Y_workforce.html
I know these kids are smart; creative; much more technology-savvy… however, I don’t think they have a very strong work ethic related to long-term career goals. They want short cuts and immediate gratification. Maybe this drive will result in some amazing new insights and inventions. However, I still subscribe to the principle that experts in anything must put in about 10,000 hours doing it. Tell that to a GenY-er and watch them smirk while texting their buddies about their next snowboarding trip.
I’m going to introduce an interesting observation into this thread, that illustrates Jeff Boone’s point about heterosexual marriage being the ideal model for raising children. I watched a documentary on orphan elephants not too long ago. These orphans were captured baby elephants introduced to areas barren of elephants bc of illegal poaching (in Africa somewhere). As these baby elephants grew up, the teen males in particular became “rogue” – rampaging and killing their own kind, humans, and anything (even large animals) that got in their way. Very uncharacteristic behavior for teen elephants. Scientists were brought in to figure out why, and offer solutions.
As it turned out, the teen elephants who hit puberty (the correct term for this phenomenon among elephants is called “must”), had violent hormone surges, with no adult bull elephants to keep them in check. Remember, the area had been barren of any elephants until baby elephants were artificially imported. So the teens reached “must” with no parental supervision, particularly no male supervision. Scientists brought in to solve the problem had to observe actual family herds of elephants elsewhere, and learn their normal behavior. What the researchers noticed was that as baby male elephants matured and came into “must” as teens, the male bull elephants would reprimand untoward behavior – and the reprimands were quite severe. The bulls brooked no “sass” from the teens. The female elephants were nowhere in the picture so to speak – they were too busy tending and protecting the baby and toddler elephants.
In consequence of this research, bull elephants were rounded up, caught, and introduced to the areas where rampaging teen elephants had gotten completely out of control. It was an amazing thing to watch. The bull elephants brought the teen elephants in order very quickly, and didn’t stand for any “tantrums” (rampaging) from the teens. Very quickly order was restored to the area. The primary victims of these rampaging out-of- control teen elephants, believe it or not, had been rhinos. The rhino population was being decimated by the rogue teen elephants.
This illustrates why it is important for children in the animal kingdom (including humans) to optimally have both male and female parents. Obviously there may be circumstances where this is not possible – but it is optimal for role modeling. But unfortunately with the advent of certain self-serving elements of our human society pushing for attacking the traditional marriage role model as the ideal, we as a society are being force fed the notion that traditional marriage is nothing special, that various other models of parenting are just as effective.
And we are now seeing the results of the notion that traditional marriage is nothing special – fewer young people are committing to each other in a traditional marriage; statistically college students are more narcissistic; alternative lifestyles of the kinkiest types show up on mainstream media (polygamy, girls who like guys who like guys, The Girls Next Door (Hef’s playboy bunnies), gay days at Disneyland where sex occurs out in the open), sexual experimentation is rampant (junior high girls giving oral sex to boys on a school bus). No-fault divorce is common – as if adultery is a socially acceptable phenomenon. Make no mistake, the ideal traditional institution of marriage is under tremendous attack, and crumbling from the weight of the vicious onslaught.
As Jeff Boone pointed out, why can’t domestic unions be afforded all the “legal rights” of traditional marriage, without changing the definition of traditional marriage as the ideal for parenting (which it clearly is)? Not every traditional marriage is ideal just as every domestic partnership is not – but the institution of traditional marriage is ideal bc it provides both a man and woman as role models.
Elaine: Very interesting animal analogy. It makes sense… humans are animals too. I think you hit it out of the park helping explain the main point I was trying to make, but failing miserably! And that ain’t no bull… elephant!
JB: “Elaine: Very interesting animal analogy. It makes sense… humans are animals too. I think you hit it out of the park helping explain the main point I was trying to make, but failing miserably! And that ain’t no bull… elephant!”
LOL – the bull elephant analogy just immediately sprang to mind when I read your post – and seemed so marvelously apt!
wdf1 says: “It leaves a shadow of shame at some level in suggesting the notion that they aren’t a real family, and they aren’t really a genuine loving couple.”
wdf1’s empathy with this “shadow of shame” is noteworthy and, IMO, the driving force behind the demand to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions. If not, full and equal substantive rights for same-sex civil unions and partnerships though the courts would be the prize sought by same-sex rights advocates. If, as is claimed, the younger generation is totally “turned-off” by attempts to distinguish between the “worth” of traditional heterosexual marriage and same-sex unions, this “shadow of shame” will extinguish itself with the passage of time without the heavy hand of the judicial system attempting,ultimately unsuccessfully IMO, to determine societal mores rather than its legitimate role of defending SUBSTANTIVE equal rights.
FYI
“An elephant family is led by a matriarch, with the matriarch being the oldest and most experienced of the herd. The matriarchal society consists of her female offspring and their young. In some cases it may include one of the matriarch’s sisters and her offspring as well. It is this close contact and relationship allows the rest of the elephant to acquire knowledge to be used when needed.
A basic African family unit contains six to twelve members. However, keep in mind that families of twelve or more elephants are quite common in certain areas.
Males as they grow older and approach puberty gradually become more independent from the family group. This involves primarily spending more time on the outskirts of the group. Eventually, the males leave the family and join with other males of different ages in a band of bulls.”
“An elephant family is led by a matriarch, with the matriarch being the oldest and most experienced of the herd”
Sounds like my wife except she is a bit younger than the bull, and shaped more like a cheetah with the claws to match.
No. I think you are missing my point. Let’s say you are the son of female gay couple raised in a loving household. You grow up around other hormone saturated boys. You may get in fights. You have trouble talking to girls. You don’t feel like you fit in with the other boys. Later you struggle to fit in as a young adult and don’t feel like the man you want to be. If you are lucky, you will have other male role models to help you solve all these life puzzles. However, most sons raised in a traditional loving household would rely on their father as a mentor.
My point is simply that gays cannot be equal to traditional parents in this case… again, assuming all other things are equal.
Jeff: Actually, I understood your point perfectly well, I just think it is misguided. History is full of examples of people (and societies) who believe “because I am [insert your favorite adjective] I will be better than [everybody else] at [whatever I want to believe I am good at].” The problem is that this sort of ‘logic’ is egocentric, based on unsupported opinion and is dependent on ignoring available evidence to the contrary. In the case of child rearing the evidence simply does not support your supposition.
Here is one conclusion from just one study that directly addresses the situation you propose and comes to a conclusion that is opposite to your opinion.
“the 17-year-old daughters and sons of lesbian mothers were rated significantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem behavior than their age-matched counterparts…” US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents Gartrell, N. and Bos H. PEDIATRICS Vol. 126 No. 1 July 2010, pp. 28-36
Traditional marriage is a better model than gay unions as it relates to raising children. You will never convince me otherwise.
And that is precisely the crux of the problem. You have decided in advance that regardless of the data, you will not be convinced to change your opinion. Choosing ignorance is the best definition of failure that I can think of.
This illustrates why it is important for children in the animal kingdom (including humans) to optimally have both male and female parents.
This anecdote says nothing about the impact of parents. If anything it demonstrates the importance of community. The introduced bull elephants were not the parents of the misbehaving youth. They were simply dominant males that enforced their dominance.
JB: “If you want a more tangible example, I would say it is not looking too good in ultra-liberalized old Europe.”
Here are countries where same-sex marriage is now legal:
Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage[/url]
What should we observe as evidence that their societies are deteriorating as a result?
“US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study”
The march of the American gay/lesbian social engineering projects is well-funded and well-organized. It is a hip and political correct cause. Your problem citing studies is the lack of them and a lack of real scientifically-vetted results for those that are funded. How can studies or challenges concerning the adverse effects of gay family childhood development even get off the ground when the militant gay-rights army attacks and destroys the career and reputation of anyone even suggesting a need for it?
These studies are all skewed because the comparison datasets are not adjusted by socio-economic status and other leveling criteria. Adopting requires means. As someone else pointed out, adopting also indicates pre-planning and motivation. Why not compare apples to apples? For example, what is the data for just adopted kids? What is the data for kids raised in gay and traditional households with parents of similar education and economic status? The junk science available today is nothing more than well-executed feeds to gay-rights political propaganda.
” You have decided in advance that regardless of the data, you will not be convinced to change your opinion. Choosing ignorance is the best definition of failure that I can think of. “
Just replace “the data” with the words “the lack of sufficient objective and scientific studies” and then look in the mirror. Frankly, you and others that push this nonsensical notion that gay parents are somehow superior to traditional parents (again, all other things being equal) makes me and others more resolved to fight back in support of traditional families. It is a conclusion that is illogical, biologically incorrect, socially incorrect, culturally destructive, and lacking common sense. Think about it… by making a case that the data demonstrates gay parents are superior, or by opining that a community can make up for any gender role deficiency, you are basically making a case that fathers are not required. If you want an explanation for why a majority of voters across the country reject gay marriage, there it is.
Marty West: “This anecdote says nothing about the impact of parents. If anything it demonstrates the importance of community. The introduced bull elephants were not the parents of the misbehaving youth. They were simply dominant males that enforced their dominance.”
I think you are missing the point. It was clear the teen elephants at that point in their lives needed fathering. Earlier in their development, when they were babies and toddlers, they needed mothering. It is clear that optimally each animal child (including humans) needs exposure to both a male and female parent if possible.
Jeff Boone: “Think about it… by making a case that the data demonstrates gay parents are superior, or by opining that a community can make up for any gender role deficiency, you are basically making a case that fathers are not required. If you want an explanation for why a majority of voters across the country reject gay marriage, there it is.”
Very, very well said…
Think about it… by making a case that the data demonstrates gay parents are superior, or by opining that a community can make up for any gender role deficiency, you are basically making a case that fathers are not required. If you want an explanation for why a majority of voters across the country reject gay marriage, there it is.
I don’t say that gay parents are superior or that fathers are not required. I’m a father and happen to think I’m pretty damn valuable to my kids. And I could build I think I could build as good a case as you about the value of fathers. But that’s also a bit of self-conceit, and not a whole lot different from me making a case that my kids are the best in the world (they are, by the way).
All I’m looking for is some clear evidence (beyond personal opinion) that same-sex human parents are inferior. If you or any Prop. 8 advocate can’t provide that, then the tide will continue to rise…
ERM: Marty West: “This anecdote
Marty? do you mean Mark West?
“All I’m looking for is some clear evidence (beyond personal opinion) that same-sex human parents are inferior. If you or any Prop. 8 advocate can’t provide that, then the tide will continue to rise… “
[quote]David Murray of the Washington-based Statistical Assessment Service and co-author of It Ain’t Necessarily So: How Media Make and Unmake the Scientific Picture of Reality, agrees that most of the research on homosexual parenting is politically contaminated. He blames it on a fear of “arousing the dog chained on the left side and arousing the cat chained on the right side” of the political spectrum.
“We have allowed the politicization of this issue to erode our capacity to see clearly and to effectively decide policy issues,” Murray said.
“It’s all about the politicization of the academic community, the federal grant-giving community and news reporting on these issues; they’ve all failed to provide good information about these important issues of social change,” he said.
As a result, he said, most of the research conducted until now tells us “squat” and only speaks to battling agendas. It has brought the public and the scientific community no closer to knowing the truth about such hot button issues, he said.
Rabbi Daniel Lapin, the President of the conservative public advocacy group Toward Tradition added that “flawed science is not new, right now it’s swirling around the controversial area of sexuality.”
But he said that science ultimately may not be able to resolve the fundamental questions some people have about controversial issues, including gay parenting and gay marriage.
“We all have to acknowledge that when push comes to shove this is not an issue that is solved by science,” he said. “It will be decided, based on beliefs and convictions.”[/quote]
Frankly, you and others that push this nonsensical notion that gay parents are somehow superior to traditional parents (again, all other things being equal) makes me and others more resolved to fight back in support of traditional families.
Jeff:
Who is being nonsensical? I have never stated that same-sex parents are better than heterosexual parents, I simply rebutted your claim to the opposite. I don’t think there is sufficient evidence to support the claim that either is better. Unfortunately, I assumed you were interested in an intelligent, respectful discussion. My mistake.
” Unfortunately, I assumed you were interested in an intelligent, respectful discussion. My mistake.”
” Choosing ignorance is the best definition of failure that I can think of. “
Mark: Call out anybody with an opposing viewpoint as an ignorant failure and you will incite some level of passionate response.
But back to the issue… so I understand your point… since you do not agree that traditional parenting is superior, and you do not agree that gay parenting is superior, it must mean that you think both are exactly the same. Right?
“…since you do not agree that traditional parenting is superior, and you do not agree that gay parenting is superior, it must mean that you think both are exactly the same.”
Or it might mean that we simply don’t know who makes “better parents” (by some subjective measure that we probably wouldn’t agree on anyway). Thus uninformed speculation about parenting skills shouldn’t provide the basis for policy. Particularly policy that discriminates against one group of people. Particularly since parenting isn’t the only reason people get married.
It is this sort of generalizing to the particular that leads to discrimination.
Women are, on average, of smaller build and strength than men.
Thus women would be less able to perform job duties that require strength.
Thus women should not be allowed to become firefighters, police officers, EMT’s, or join the military.
Sound ridiculous? It was considered a perfectly cogent argument in the 1970’s. And it was the basis for discriminating against individual women because of generalizations about women as a group.
“Sound ridiculous?”
None of those examples have anything to do with kids.
JB: On this issue, it seems that you depart from a more pure libertarian position that would allow for same-sex marriages.
Thank you for offering the Murray quote. I thought this part was especially cogent:
“We all have to acknowledge that when push comes to shove this is not an issue that is solved by science,” he said. “It will be decided, based on beliefs and convictions.”
JB: Traditional marriage is a better model than gay unions as it relates to raising children. You will never convince me otherwise.
You can only reach this conclusion based on belief and conviction from your personal experience.
since you do not agree that traditional parenting is superior, and you do not agree that gay parenting is superior, it must mean that you think both are exactly the same. Right?
I think we would both agree, ultimately, that for our situations, traditional (heterosexual) parenting is a great thing. But I think we differ in that with no solid evidence that children are specifically harmed because of having same-sex parents, I’m not willing to declare their parenting philosophies and situation as inferior (just different and not my preference), but it appears that you are. And through that, it appears that you support banning same-sex marriage.
” Choosing ignorance is the best definition of failure that I can think of. “
Mark: Call out anybody with an opposing viewpoint as an ignorant failure and you will incite some level of passionate response.
Jeff: Again, you have misread my words. I was not referring to your opinion or position on gay marriage as ignorant or you as a failure. I was referring directly to this statement.
You will never convince me otherwise.
Someone who is unwilling to learn from the world/people around them is choosing ignorance and choosing ignorance is an active act of failure. It is like saying the world looks flat so I believe it is flat and therefore, you can never convince me otherwise.
I disagree with your opinion, but do not view you as a failure or ignorant because of the opinions/views you hold. I view your statement “you will never convince me otherwise” as refusing to learn, evaluate and perhaps change your own opinions in the light of facts and arguments to the contrary, as an active act of choosing ignorance.
What I was trying to point out to you is that your arguments here are your own view/opinion/faith and not supported by data. There is simply no data to support your statement that same sex couples cannot be as good a parent as you are. It is your opinion, not fact. Yet in your arguments you treat it as a fact that everyone else should support as being obvious.
With regards to Prop 8. Marriage today is a civil contract between two adults that allows them certain benefits and rights with regards to society and interactions with State and Federal governments. Procreation is not a requirement for obtaining the benefits and rights of marriage. Couples who choose NOT to have children retain all of the rights and benefits as those who choose to have them. Being married is a civil right and as such, should not be denied to any citizen of the country.
The fact that marriage for many is also a religious rite does not, and should not, have any bearing on the discussion.
Mark: “You will never convince me otherwise” meant that you will never convince me that a same-sex marriage is a better model – or even an equal model – for raising children. That does not mean that I will never be convinced to support gay marriage. Right now, for me to support gay marriage, it would require the activist movement bent on re-engineering society in this way to admit there are differences and to discuss those differences openly and honestly. My thinking might change over time and I might grow more supportive of gay marriage, but I will not ever be convinced that it is a better model for children.
It is freakin’ nuts to me that the same group demanding so many rules and restrictions to protect the natural world cannot grasp the absurdity of their forcing others to accept the equality of a biologically-incorrect family model as being better than, or even equal to, what nature obviously devised to ensure the longevity of the species. I see it as indicative of a certain arrogance of academics… similar to the arrogance of academics that failed to see the danger in the overheated housing market, and the proliferation of un-managed risk with collateralized debt obligations. New is not always better, so we need to completely analyze the pros and cons and the risks and benefits and not make half-baked assumptions.
Procreation and childhood development are extremely important social issues; and I believe they are going to be recognized as the source of the future global decline of Western civilization. Western birthrates have fallen seeming in step with the power of progressives to redefine the traditional structures of society so that every uniquely-wired or uniquely-behaving person gets some legislated group protection that erodes traditions that have sustained our species for centuries. These birthrate trends may or may not have much to the politics of sexual orientation; but we don’t know that. The correlation is certainly suspect.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting
[Quote] “We know very little yet about how parents influence the development of their children’s sexual identities or how these intersect with gender… We need comparable data for children reared by single heterosexual mothers or exclusively by men to distinguish the impact of gender from sexual identity here.” [/Quote]
[Quote]” Stacey and Biblarz have found that children raised by same-sex couples are more likely to depart from traditional gender roles. For example, male children are found to be less aggressive and more nurturing, while female children are more likely to aspire to become doctors, lawyers and engineers.” [/Quote]
From these two quote, one can infer the following:
•We really do not know if gay parenting results in a greater percentage of children being gay.
•Boys raised by gay parents will be less like other boys.
•Girls raised by gay parents will be more likely to pursue advanced professional careers.
So, what are the social ramifications of these changes? You don’t know. The social scientists are not even exploring the questions.
“But I think we differ in that with no solid evidence that children are specifically harmed because of having same-sex parents, I’m not willing to declare their parenting philosophies and situation as inferior (just different and not my preference), but it appears that you are. And through that, it appears that you support banning same-sex marriage.”
wdf1: It is partially the element of male “chickification” (a Rush-sim) and an emphasis on female childhood development over male childhood development that concerns me. Look at the statistical trends for young males in this country… it does not look good. Look at birthrates and the trends and projections for traditional marriage… it also does not look good. What are the social implications of these things, and what is the correlation from an explosion in the number of children raised by gay parents?
Western birthrates have fallen seeming in step with the power of progressives to redefine the traditional structures of society
Birth rates fall as people achieve greater education and affluence. Period. It has nothing to do with ideology. Even in countries where religions try to dictate procreative behavior, birth rates fall as women become better educated and are able to access health care and birth control.
•Boys raised by gay parents will be less like other boys.
•Girls raised by gay parents will be more likely to pursue advanced professional careers.
Some might not consider either of these outcomes undesirable. Again, this is not a basis for withholding the right to marry, since procreation is not the only reason people get married.
ensure the longevity of the species.
I believe marriage is a contract. You seem to think it is a method of preserving DNA.
male “chickification” (a Rush-sim)
Rush Limbaugh isn’t exactly your best source to go to on marriage topics: married four times, and never procreated.
“Rush Limbaugh isn’t exactly your best source to go to on marriage topics: married four times, and never procreated. “
Good point. However, the term was the best I could come up with to illustrate my point. I don’t do this for a living you know (although as much as I have been posting on this topic, you might think it was my job).
“I believe marriage is a contract. You seem to think it is a method of preserving DNA. “
Don, the institution of marriage has existed far longer than has the instition of the ACLU.
wdf1: It is partially the element of male “chickification” (a Rush-sim) and an emphasis on female childhood development over male childhood development that concerns me. Look at the statistical trends for young males in this country… it does not look good. Look at birthrates and the trends and projections for traditional marriage… it also does not look good. What are the social implications of these things, and what is the correlation from an explosion in the number of children raised by gay parents?
I can see some of where your coming from, but I don’t see this issue as having much to do with same-sex marriage. There have always been homosexuals in society, and there always will be. If the number of gays/lesbians alarms you, then you can at least take comfort that they don’t breed the way heterosexuals (aka, “breeders”) do.
There is at least one clear remedy to this problem — bring in more male teachers to the grade school teaching profession, especially at secondary levels, when male role models would be important during adolescent development.
The problem is that the teaching profession is not a desirable career in these times, especially when a significant portion of the public is bent on criticizing the failures of public education, and not inclined to raise taxes to cover what it takes to maintain what we had 5 and 10 years ago. I think part of your framing of male role modeling would include being the main provider for the family. Teaching doesn’t offer the appearance of career stability for someone who would like to be the provider for the family, and things are only getting worse in this regard:
State’s teacher supply plummets:
[url]http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/states-teacher-supply-plummets-7436[/url]
What are the social implications of these things, and what is the correlation from an explosion in the number of children raised by gay parents?
When campaigning against the Briggs Initiative in the 1970’s([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briggs_Initiative[/url]), gay activist Harvey Milk argued that if personal lifestyle really rubbed off on young people the way you imply, that with all the nuns who used to teach in Catholic schools, it certainly didn’t result in more girls choosing to become nuns.
Another aspect to Rush Limbaugh’s “chickification” terminology is that to me it is a subtle dig at the current trend of anti-bullying campaigning among youth, particularly directed at boys who are perceived to be gay. That is one dark aspect of past American societal thinking that needs to be changed — that we have to do a better job of getting youth to tone down the bullying.
“Another aspect to Rush Limbaugh’s “chickification” terminology is that to me it is a subtle dig at the current trend of anti-bullying campaigning among youth, particularly directed at boys who are perceived to be gay.”
Before I ramble again in this politically-incorrect territory; please note that I subscribe to the scientific facts that men and women are wired differently; and that there is a reason a purpose for traditional male and female roles in society.
I don’t have time to listen to Rush Limbaugh’s radio show these days, but I know that the term was used to stress his dislike of a society that values females and new female behavior over males and traditional male behavior. The message for boys and men is: if you behave more like girls and women you will be more socially accepted: hence the term “chickification”.
You bring up an interesting point about bullying. What I remember about this from my youth was that girl bullying was just as prevalent and sometimes more damaging to the victim. Boy bullying would be overt, and they would often fight it out. The socially-sophisticated bully would often be held in check by the number of physically-sophisticated enforcers. It was only the boys that possessed both of these things that could truly cause trouble. Girls, however, tended to bully with psychological warfare and social politics. They also did it in groups; where boy bullies tended to be loners. Regardless if it was from a boy or a girl, it was this type of bullying that did the most damage; but it was also the most difficult to enforce. Interesting enough for me… I see a reflection of this system in the workplace: more men that can deal with individual conflict in an overt way as a means to get the job done, and more women that are bent on establishing a social environment and hierarchy before, and sometimes at the impediment to, getting the job done. However, when all is right in this social environment, women tend to out-perform men when the work requires collaboration.
I had an interesting childhood experience related to bullying. I was blessed with athletic skills, but also was a bit of an introvert and sensitive nerd. It was this later tendency that made me a target of bullying at times. But I had been around the block and understood the need to stand up for myself when harassed. Just like a 100 lb. person controlling a 1500 lb horse, you don’t need to be the strongest to be the controlling force. I think we are screwing up some of our sons by removing the need to learn how to deal with conflict. We are all becoming thin-skinned… trying to make everyone a 100 lb clone so we can all be legislated as safe and fair.
I sense in your posts and other’s posts a certain negative opinion of traditional boys and men and traditional male behavior. It provides me a sense that many progressives view the guy from the Midwest as an aberration resistant to “evolving” to the East/West coast man model. I am fighting against that movement for the sake of my sons.
Today, women are earning more college degrees. They are dominating the professional careers. Many more boys are dropping out of school. The trends are up for females and down for males. I have no problem with gender equality; but frankly I think too many men have been co-opted into this view that allowing females to dominate society will lead us to a better place. I think it will be a social and cultural disaster unless we reverse and then balance the trends. If you disagree, then please, name me one example in any past or current culture that we can use as an example to back up this theory that a female-dominated and controlled economy and society will be better for us.
I see gay marriage as being another piece of the anti-man, pro-woman march. The posts confirm that many here don’t value traditional fathers very much (except, of course, for their own situation). My take away is that folks see it as a flawed model and believe it is improved with social engineering to more non-traditional parenting alternatives. I am fighting against that movement for the sake of my sons.
“There is at least one clear remedy to this problem — bring in more male teachers to the grade school teaching profession, especially at secondary levels, when male role models would be important during adolescent development.”
Amen. My oldest son started down that path and then quickly determined that he could not survive intereracting with the teachers and students in his classes.
When we privatize more of K-12 education, we will begin to solve this problem.
When we privatize more of K-12 education, we will begin to solve this problem.
I don’t follow how that would encourage more males to participate in grade school teaching. Are there more males teaching in private schools? I’ve seen private school systems encouraged in Latin America, and what I think you get is more class stratification and less economic mobility, all based on what resources your family has.
wdf1: I think with American-style privatization we will get choice… lots of choice… and it will cause more diversity in the type of schools and type of education approaches… and more of this will appeal to male teachers.
Latin America is a poor model for comparison. Class-stratification can be dealt with using vouchers.
We need an education revolution that provides drastically improved life opportunities for more than just our academic elite.
Today, women are earning more college degrees. They are dominating the professional careers. Many more boys are dropping out of school. The trends are up for females and down for males. I have no problem with gender equality; but frankly I think too many men have been co-opted into this view that allowing females to dominate society will lead us to a better place.
I think academic demands have been placed on students at younger ages, and women have been better able to respond because they mature faster than boys. Boys/men are still maturing up to age 25. Most car rental companies won’t rent to anyone under 25, and I have the feeling they have young men in mind more than young women. In other words, the free market is aware of this phenomenon of immaturity at that age.
Structured group activities, like school sports and performing arts (band, choir, drama), have been devalued in the current educational environment. Those are the programs that get cut first when funds are scarce, and when test scores aren’t what the standards demand. Girls will better adjust in the absence of these programs, because they are more socially in tune. Boys are likelier to get lost.
One of the best things that happened to this country was the GI bill, a classic socialist program. It provided a path for men to get an education after they had matured and served their country for a few years after high school. All in an orgaization that is the ultimate in providing complete organizational structure and development, mostly to males, the military.
By the time they got out of the military, they had reached an age of mature development, had had a dose of reality as to what the rest of the world was like, and could now go to college with more focus and direction, and not worry as much about how to pay for it.
But as for grade school, I argue for keeping the sports and performing arts so that more boys will at least cross the stage and get their diploma. As for post high school, I would like to see some program that involved social service for a few years, in exchange for college support.
I think you’d see college graduation rates for men come up to par with women if you had a program like that.
“Here are countries where same-sex marriage is now legal:
Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden”
Birth Rate Ranking out of 228 sovereign states and dependent territories:
Argentina = 108 (legal only since July, 2010)
Belgium = 156
Canada = 159
Iceland = 150
Netherlands = 178
Norway = 166
Portugal = 191
South Africa = 85 (legal since November 2006, but not a good comparison)
Spain = 168
Sweden = 177
US = 130
wdf1: I hear the “girls mature faster than boys” theory and quite frankly I see it as being part of the anti-boy template. How about we just admit that boys and girls are different and leave it at that? “Maturity” in this context is very subjective and I think a too convenient excuse given by people lacking the skills or patience to deal with boys as they were designed by God and/or nature. You bring up military service, but don’t progressives want to cut the military?
One of the biggest hits to boys was title-IX. It was good for girls; but bad for boys. What we need is title-X that provides about 50% male educators and changes the curriculum and teaching style to encourage at least 50% academic participation for boys.
The woman’s equality movement, the racial equality movement, the gay-rights movement, the ??? Movement… has anyone ever defined what the measurable objectives are for all these movements so we know when to stop moving?
Birth Rate Ranking out of 228 sovereign states and dependent territories:
What point do you want to make here? That because they legalized same-sex marriage, their birth rate went down?
If this is what you’re arguing:
Western birthrates have fallen seeming in step with the power of progressives to redefine the traditional structures of society
Then I would build on Don Shor’s response above:
Birth rates fall as people achieve greater education and affluence. Period. It has nothing to do with ideology. Even in countries where religions try to dictate procreative behavior, birth rates fall as women become better educated and are able to access health care and birth control.
that some contributing socialist-type causes that could account for this include public health (vaccinations, disease control), compulsory public education, food inspection, child labor laws, allowing women the right to vote, access to good roads.
Perhaps ways in which we have already become “chickified” (to me the word looks like “chicken fried”) is that it is much less acceptable for a husband to beat his wife, less acceptable for men to patronize women on the account of their gender, and politically less acceptable to cheat on your wife. These are all societal changes that I’ve seen in my life time, and I think for the better. I presume that you would agree. But all of the above were more accepted for centuries before. By banning same-sex marriage, I see it as making one class of people miserable just because that’s the way it’s been.
You seem to like darwinism as a way to explain economics, perhaps from the competitive end of things. But one valid way to look at evolutionary Darwinism (both economically and biologically) is to look for ways to reduce conflict and increase productivity (here I mean contributing good things to society like being in stable, committed relationships and raising kids). Banning same-sex marriage is like an unnecessary, burdensome regulation to the economy.
I sense in your posts and other’s posts a certain negative opinion of traditional boys and men and traditional male behavior.
Only certain behaviors, like domestic violence, and demeaning women. But I’m fine with opening doors for women, making sure a girlfriend gets home safely, and spending time with wife and kids.
You bring up military service, but don’t progressives want to cut the military?
Only where it’s not necessary.
One of the biggest hits to boys was title-IX. It was good for girls; but bad for boys. What we need is title-X that provides about 50% male educators and changes the curriculum and teaching style to encourage at least 50% academic participation for boys.
I see what the original point was, but I’m not happy with some of the results. It has been used as an excuse to cut men’s sports rather than bring athletic opportunities to women on par with men.
The woman’s equality movement, the racial equality movement, the gay-rights movement, the ??? Movement… has anyone ever defined what the measurable objectives are for all these movements so we know when to stop moving?
As with the economy, change is the only certainty. An evolutionary advantage is figuring out how to adapt. And as with successful companies, humans are pretty good at adapting, compared to other organisms.
I hear the “girls mature faster than boys” theory and quite frankly I see it as being part of the anti-boy template. How about we just admit that boys and girls are different and leave it at that?
Well, there’s a lot of material out there to support that kind of conclusion (girls mature faster). We could gloss over it all and say that we’re being anti-boy, as you want to do, but then we’d never understand what’s going on. I don’t see it as being anti-boy, either. It’s just different, and it helps to understand what those differences are.
“You seem to like Darwinism as a way to explain economics, perhaps from the competitive end of things.”
A gay acquaintance of mine had a great response to my point that homosexuality will always be biologically-incorrect, and because of this, it should always be considered as posing some risk to the evolution of the human species. After all, we cannot all be gay or, lacking necessary medical science or unnatural insemination customs, we would become extinct.
He commented that although he agrees with my point as it relates to natural procreation, how did I know it is biologically incorrect from a macro evolutionary perspective? That gave me pause for several months until I had the epiphany that it was just as likely that species pressure to limit the social acceptance of gay marriage was a macro evolutionary tendency.
That is my current perspective: gay marriage may be inevitable, but change of this magnitude requires it run the gauntlet of opposition and critical analysis until it is accepted… and we should assume it will be never be fully accepted.
“Birth rates fall as people achieve greater education and affluence. Period. It has nothing to do with ideology.”
I can only agree that there is a correlation related to education and affluence, but it is not the only explanation. I also cannot say for sure that ideology plays a part, but there is a strong correlation between affluent liberals having less children than affluent conservatives.
Here is a quote from some piece that I lost the link to:
[quote]Vermont (which is represented in Congress by Socialist Bernie Sanders), has the lowest birthrate at only 1.57 babies per woman. In contrast, our most socially conservative state, Mormon-dominated Utah, has the highest fertility at 2.71. That’s 73% more babies per woman. At this rate, if Utah and Vermont had equal populations today and there was no migration in or out of either state, in two generations there would be three times more children in Utah than in Vermont.[/quote]
Interesting article:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201010/girls-are-more-intelligent-boys-men-are-more-intelligent-w
So girls pysically mature faster and have the early advantage. About the time the boys mature, they are out of luck because the public education system has shut them down.
Another article: http://www.vancouversun.com/girls+smarter+than+boys/1714893/story.html
[quote]Roger van Renesse, who graduated from Argyle this month, suggested girls have an easier time asking questions and seeking help. When boys say they don’t understand something, everyone assumes they weren’t paying attention.[/quote]
Seems this might explain quite a bit of the problem.
A gay acquaintance of mine had a great response to my point that homosexuality will always be biologically-incorrect, and because of this, it should always be considered as posing some risk to the evolution of the human species. After all, we cannot all be gay or, lacking necessary medical science or unnatural insemination customs, we would become extinct.
It may not be the role of every individual in a species to procreate. There are ants or bees, and those are probably the obvious examples. The workers, in their own way, contribute to their society and ultimately prolong their overall genetic material. There is same-sex behavior exhibited in other mammals; makes it a little more challenging to say that it’s a conscious choice in humans.
That is my current perspective: gay marriage may be inevitable, but change of this magnitude requires it run the gauntlet of opposition and critical analysis until it is accepted… and we should assume it will be never be fully accepted.
How will you decide that it’s run enough gauntlet and critical analysis? When the electorate reaches 50% +1 on the issue?
Along the lines above, I read/heard somewhere, probably on the radio, that a researcher found instances in which not every individual sperm (I don’t know which species, here) had the goal of insemination, but rather helped other sperm to inseminate. If true, it shows that the concept of collectivism has possibly already infiltrated our own precious bodily fluids!
“it shows that the concept of collectivism has possibly already infiltrated our own precious bodily fluids!
Ha! Yikes! I would prefer that the little buggers compete against each other.
“It may not be the role of every individual in a species to procreate.”
Certainly, but we still need a birth rate of about 2% to sustain the species. When too many of a tribe opt out, it spells the eventual doom of the tribe.
Certainly, but we still need a birth rate of about 2% to sustain the species. When too many of a tribe opt out, it spells the eventual doom of the tribe.
Where do you get that figure, 2%? and under what conditions?
Certainly, but we still need a birth rate of about 2% to sustain the species. When too many of a tribe opt out, it spells the eventual doom of the tribe.
An interesting article in the January National Geographic on global population growth and demographics. It suggests that lower birth rates may not be a bad thing.
wdf1: With the exception of the United States, the developed countries of the Western world now have birthrates below the population replacement rate, which requires an average of 2.1 children for every woman. The metric is easy to understand: mom and dad need to produce a replacement for themselves.
As more and more affluent Western tribe members decide having kids cramps their style, we are dooming the tribe and its culture from the demographic shifts that will occur.
As more and more affluent Western tribe members decide having kids cramps their style, we are dooming the tribe and its culture from the demographic shifts that will occur.
Which goal do you want to achieve most? Preserve the species? the planet? preserve a free market, libertarian society? do you think your vision for an ideal society is sustainable if spread globally? After all, the US is on record for being the biggest (or at least one of the biggest) consumers, in many respects — energy, natural resources, etc.
Long term, is it a bad thing to have those kinds of reductions in population? A big question that is hard to answer even now is whether 7 billion is a sustainable population for Earth, or can we go bigger. Whether we can avoid a Malthusian nightmare, in which famine, disease, and possibly social unrest and cataclysm keep the population in check due to insufficient resources.
From this perspective, it’s hard for me to believe if we legalize same-sex marriage, then we doom the world. That doesn’t sound way over-the-top, to you? Maybe you see something I don’t?
wdf1/Don Shor: I read this last night. Good brain food for this topic:
http://discovermagazine.com/2011/jan-feb/03
JB: a recent audio show for you on other contemporary thoughts on the topic:
Radiolab: The Good Show
[url]http://www.radiolab.org/2010/dec/14/[/url]
Floating around e-mail these days:
[quote]To My Democratic Friends:
Please accept with no obligation, implied or explicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2011 but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than neither any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.
To My Republican “Acquaintances”:
Merry Christmas and a Fun New Year!
[/quote]