This week in California the issue of same-sex marriage has re-surfaced, due to the ruling that Judge Vaughn Walker was not conflicted out due to his own sexual orientation.
Regardless, in 2008, the state voters narrowly passed a ban on same-sex marriage. However, that ban is now in question as a federal court has already ruled it unconstitutional. Emerging in the last couples of years, also, is opinion polling that shows an increasing number of California voters more and more inclined to support same-sex marriage.
“I am a proponent of marriage equality, and I’m working very hard to make that a reality in New York,” Mr. Cuomo told reporters on Friday as lawmakers prepared to go home for the weekend. “I am also a proponent of religious freedom, and separation of church and state, so these are both very important principles. I don’t see one in competition with the other.”
The New York Times reports, “With signs pointing to a vote on the marriage issue in the State Senate next week, there are widespread expectations that it will pass.”
At least two Republicans have agreed to go along with the measure and more have indicated that they would lend their support, so long as Governor Cuomo agreed to amend the proposal to give more protection to religious organizations.
“There is a concern right now as to the unintended consequences of some of the religious clauses, carve-outs, protections,” said the Senate majority leader, Dean G. Skelos, a Long Island Republican as reported by the New York Times.
“Governor Cuomo has been most gracious in terms of listening to some of these concerns,” Mr. Skelos added. “I think he’s doing the right thing by doing that, and those concerns will continue to be addressed.”
In a new story on Saturday, some of the unintended consequences apparently are due to lawsuits in other states against religious institutions who refuse to perform same-sex ceremonies. I do not think it unreasonable for religious institutions to be allowed to decide on their own how to handle the matter.
I have long argued that same-sex marriage is simply a matter of time. The younger generations do not feel the same apprehension to same-sex marriage, or to gays in general, that older generations do.
People my age and younger have been raised with openly-gay people as a commonplace in society. They have gay friends, gay relatives, gay associates.
For those who argue that gay marriage devalues the institution, I would argue that gays could hardly do as much damage to marriage as an institution than has already been done through divorce and infidelity by straight partners.
The New York Daily news this morning has an article that reports that same-sex marriage in New York “could bring legions of gay couples to the state – and pump millions into its economy.”
It is similar to what happened in California briefly in 2008 when the courts legalized same-sex marriage prior to the passage of Prop 8.
Writes the Daily News, “Owners of flower shops, wedding venues and hotels are licking their chops over the $184 million expected to flood New York if gay marriage is recognized.”
“Roughly 56,000 out-of-town couples would flock to New York to wed if a same-sex marriage bill were passed, according to a 2007 report by former city Controller Bill Thompson,” the Daily News reports. “In all, the weddings would generate $184 million for the state and $142 million for the city, the report says.”
“Thousands of gay couples from the tri-state area and beyond have trekked to Massachusetts to wed since it legalized same-sex marriage in 2004 – pumping more than $110 million into the state, says a 2008 report from the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law,” they continue.
While obviously these are localized phenomena that will be shor- lived, what should be becoming ever more clear is that same-sex marriage, as Gavin Newsom put it, will happen and it is inevitable.
The question is really when that will occur.
Demographics and cultural trends are not on the side of opponents of same-sex marriage. The best thing they can do is take the kinds of reasonable steps that have occurred in New York.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]Writes the Daily News, “Owners of flower shops, wedding venues and hotels are licking their chops over the $184 million expected to flood New York if gay marriage is recognized.”[/quote]
Yes, the generation of tax revenue is a good reason to be “ahead of the curve” when it comes to the gay marriage issue…
“Thousands of gay couples from the tri-state area and beyond have trekked to Massachusetts to wed since it legalized same-sex marriage in 2004 – pumping more than $110 million into the state, says a 2008 report from the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law,” they continue.
While obviously these are localized phenomena that will be shor- lived, what should be becoming ever more clear is that same-sex marriage, as Gavin Newsom put it, will happen and it is inevitable.”
in other words, its all about the almighty dollar.
Musser
It may be about the “almighty dollar” for those who are not homosexual couples seeking to marry. It is about equality for those who are seeking marriage.
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).
Would someone who is opposed to same sex marriage please explain to me why it’s so important to you to keep other people from doing something you don’t approve of? For me, it’s a no brainer. If I don’t approve of something I say I don’t approve and I don’t do it. If it’s not harming anyone, why the heck do you care so much?
It’s interesting to note that one of the laws of biology is that:
Within any given species of mammals, when the population reaches a point where further breeding among the herd begins to create overpopulation, to the point where resources become scarce and mass die off within the herd is inevitable,a certain portion of the herd ceases to breed and displays what we refer to as “homosexual” characteristics.
While a shrinking portion of the human population seems determined to put a stop to this deviation in behavior, coming up with many derogatory names for those who choose intimacy with members of their own gender, the homosexual community simply refers to those of us who choose to procreate as “the breeders”. They seem to recognize that overpopulation is the most pressing problem threatening the continued existence of the human herd.
It would seem that more people finding happiness, without contributing to planetary overpopulation, means a greater chance to address environmental issues before wars, famines, and plagues reduce the human herd to a sustainable level.
For this reason I am grateful for the impending cultural acceptance of same sex marriage. Better late than never!
Steve Hayes: [i]The Lessons of History[/i]
Well done.
JayTee: Read what Steve Hayes posted.
roger bockrath: Interesting point, and one made by a gay friend of mine (re: macro biological changes). However, the cultures that are multiplying like rabbits persecute homosexuals. It is the West that increasingly embraces the gay lifestyle, and it is the West that is experiencing a birth rate that is almost half of what it needs to be sustainable. That rate is 2.0%. In the US we are barely over 2.0% mostly because of immigration from our southern border. By comparison, Yemen has a birthrate of near 7% and Spain is about .09%.
I find it almost laughable that we sophisticated industrial countries are wringing our hands about over-population and trying to solve by reducing our own population growth, while the third world countries pump out 5-7 poor, malnourished and future illiterate babies per mother. A more rational solution to stop to over-population would be to stop sending food and aid to Africa… or to stop slowing the march of aids. I find both of those approaches reprehensible and do not support them. However, neither do I allowing gay marriage to help reduce the number of children produced in Western countries.
To Steve Hayes: Nice response! Us old folks are often dismissed as irrelevant by the young…
“It is about equality for those who are seeking marriage.”
or is it about mainstreaming homosexuality? I find that claim debatable.
Somehow I think the increased significance of the two income families and the related added stress has more to do with the low birth rate than the recognition that Gays are people also and deserve the same rights I have. There is something to tradition but I took many history courses and I do not recall any honor/recognition of those “great” conservatives who contributed toward trying to block radical ideas like the Civil Rights or the Womens Suffrage movements. In fact it is safe to say we find no value (from a historic perspective) in the people who opposed those movments.
[i]or is it about mainstreaming homosexuality? [/i]
Mainstreaming homosexuality would be an admirable goal, but it is not the specific goal of those seeking marriage equality.
Don: I agree that it is not mainstreaming… I think it is much more insidious. It is a step in a never-ending path toward some level of social and political dominance.
I challenge that gay marriage is a civil rights issue because first we would have to agree that we should be grouping people based on sexual preference. I don’t. Regardless, all we have to do is look at other civil rights movements to understand the “never-ending dominance” tendency. Do me a favor and describe to me the vision you might have for a future when we would no longer have to suffer the din from activists claiming racism and gender bias. Personally, I think we arrived there some time ago, yet even in the Davis Enterprise we have regular columns about the continuing travesties of bias occurring on a day-to-day basis. We have a full integrated society, we have a black president, and women already dominate men in most education and economic categories and the trends are continued dominance over men. Yet, we still get shovel fed the template of race and woman gender bias.
The fact is that once started, the activists can never stop. Today gay marriage, tomorrow… who knows? I am guessing things like gay sex education in the classroom… gay bathrooms in the schools and public spaces… or maybe gays able to chose their preferred bathroom… private churches harassed and sued for not accepting gays in their rites and rituals… Christmas Nativity scenes with two Josephs or two Marys… outlawing the word “gay” from use under hate crimes… replaced by a new word considered more sensitive… until that new word is considered insensitive and a another word is invented. You think I am joking about these things… they sound way out there don’t they? I think about as far out there as gay marriage sounded 15 years ago.
Yes, the insidious nature of the women’s movement should worry us (well half of us) – sooner or later they are going to start telling us what to do. Oh well at least we have day’s like Father’s Day when we can tell them what we would like to do.
Alphonso: LOL! Don’t many husbands already accept being told what to do?
Question: will we be forced to change “Mothers Day” and “Fathers Day” to “Nongender Parenting Day”?
[i]”…first we would have to agree that we should be grouping people based on sexual preference. I don’t.”[/i]
I agree. People should be able to marry, join the military, and work and live anywhere they choose regardless of their sexual orientation.
[i]”Do me a favor and describe to me the vision you might have for a future when we would no longer have to suffer the din from activists…”[/i]
Activists become irrelevant as their goals are achieved. Jesse Jackson and Gloria Steinem don’t get much media attention these days. I don’t know which columns in the Enterprise offend you so much, but I think David can verify that the notion that citizens of various ethnicities no longer experience differential treatment is incorrect. Driving While Black is still apparently enough to get you pulled over in Davis. And the rate at which they interact with law enforcement is much higher per capita than that of whites.
Gay youth should know gay grownups. Gay men and women should be able to work anywhere, marry, and basically do everything that straight people do. I have no concern about bathroom usage. Gay sex education could be perfectly appropriate. Frankly, this all sounds like the arguments that were used successfully in the 1970’s to derail the ERA.
Seriously, what are you so afraid of? Gay people are normal and deserve full rights.
[i]Question: will we be forced to change “Mothers Day” and “Fathers Day” to “Nongender Parenting Day”?[/i]
Gay male parents call themselves fathers. Gay female parents call themselves mothers.
[i]Jeff Boone: (Stray comments – admittedly taken out of context to make a point)
“a gay friend of mine”
“a black President”
“Women already dominate men”
“continued dominance over men”[/i]
I don’t have a ‘black President,’ I have a President who just happens to have more melanin in his skin then I do.
I choose not to have ‘gay friends.’ I do however have a number of friends, family members and customers who self describe as being gay, minority, or physically challenged (among others). To me they are simply friends, family members and customers.
When I left the University of California in 1982, the Chair of my department was a woman and that fact was completely unremarkable. However, when I left the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in 1991, never in the history of the School had there been a Department Chair who was a woman, and only 2 of 60 tenured Professors in the basic science departments were women. No need to mention non-white professors because there weren’t any. That was considered perfectly normal in Baltimore.
When I went to work in the California wine industry in 1995, there were a number of wineries where woman were not allowed to work in the cellar simply because they lacked a ‘Y’ chromosome. There still are.
This is my experience, in my life time. We don’t have a fully integrated society and in my opinion we won’t have one as long as a significant proportion of the voting public are heterosexual, Caucasian, male, voters who believe they are being [i]”shovel fed the template of race and woman gender bias.”[/i]
This is not an ‘us vs. them’ proposition. If we are to be inclusive, then there is no reason for differentiation. All should have the same rights and responsibilities, including marriage, regardless of skin color, sex, sexual orientation, or other discriminatory criteria.
M.W.: [i]This is not an ‘us vs. them’ proposition. If we are to be inclusive, then there is no reason for differentiation. All should have the same rights and responsibilities, including marriage, regardless of skin color, sex, sexual orientation, or other discriminatory criteria.[/i]
Well said!
Don: “Mainstreaming homosexuality would be an admirable goal, but it is not the specific goal of those seeking marriage equality.”
like I said, I find that claim debatable. especially considering the first part of your statement.
Why?
Mark: How can we calculate continued bias against blacks if we cannot even admit our President it black? I think even Obama himself admits he is black. You and I are actually on the same page in terms of not caring about different skin tones. But you can’t have it both ways. Either it matters, or it doesn’t.
Again, on your point about gays, I think it is an enviable proposition to envision a world where everyone is treated exactly the same. I think I read some science fiction books with this theme. Those tall, lanky, red-haired, freckled kids, and the fat kids, and the short kids, the academically gifted and non-academically gifted kids, the socially awkward kids… all of them would sure like to stop being teased and marginalized for being the way they are. I guess they too need a recognized group. Do they get to keep up their protections after they become adults too? Seem like this could hamper their becoming well-functioning adults if we provide social constructs to prop them up. I mean, when is a person’s struggle just a life struggle and not an opportunity for activists to form a new group demanding special protection?
Frankly, I think the continuing female discrimination story is a load of horse crap. I have been in the private-sector working world for 33 years and know exactly why women are not in more higher positions… it is because a large percentage of them valued other things rather than getting into a competitive slugfest with their male counterparts more eager and ambitions to climb the ladder. Despite the dreams of NOW, women tend to seek different work-life balance than men. You can’t just look at the statistics and draw conclusion that bias is still occurring. Look a little deeper. Certainly old paradigms die hard… if woman have not worked in a certain field previously the notion of them doing so can take some time to develop. However, just ask male nurses how that looks and feels. Life is a struggle. Didn’t everyone’s parents tell them that life isn’t always fair? And guess what… scientists have proven what most objective people have known all along… that men and women are wired differently. So today maybe there are good reasons why men and women don’t have exact parity in all career fields. There are no women playing major league baseball that I have been able to find.
However, never fear… women are poised to get what they asked for. They used the courts to take grade school and collegiate sports away from boys. They are displacing men in all upper level college degrees. They dominate employment in 14 of the 15 industries expected to lead in the next decade. It is increasingly a woman’s world. Let’s hope we all like what it becomes. I read that scientists are creating replacement organs from stem cells. Maybe one day they can create female reproductive organs and implant them in the male body. Maybe then NOW can claim it has reached its goal. I don’t think they ever will be able to hit a 90 MPH fast ball in numbers high enough to dominate professional baseball, but eventually they might be able to force a professional sports Title-IX.
[i]”We don’t have a fully integrated society and in my opinion we won’t have one as long as a significant proportion of the voting public are heterosexual, Caucasian, males…”[/i]
This sounds like bias against a specific group of people. If I could re-invent myself as a gay, black female I might be okay with that kind of statement. However, I was born this way… so why are others trying to make me feel bad about it? Also note, that we are the minority in California.
Don: [i]”Gay male parents call themselves fathers. Gay female parents call themselves mothers.”[/i]
Thanks for the clarification.
Do we get both gay parents the same card and gift?
Get them whatever you want. Why are you so concerned about this sort of minutiae?
Don: [i]”Seriously, what are you so afraid of? Gay people are normal and deserve full rights.”[/i]
I do not fear gay people any more than I fear any other individual; however, I fear liberal-progressive activist types changing my country’s culture to be something other than what many Americans value and think is good for our nation going forward. From the liberal-progressive activist types’ perspective, we are supposed to celebrate differences and diversity, and then make sure fairness is legislated to the nth degree. Frankly, it seems a bit bipolar.
[i]”Get them whatever you want. Why are you so concerned about this sort of minutiae?”[/i]
Don, it is the minutiae that matters when we are talking about our rituals and culture. Don’t you get that gay marriage throws a significant monkey into the wrench of cultural etiquette and customs related to marriage and parenting?
Getting back to the parenting thing… I know several people getting long-term regular counseling over unresolved childhood issues from not having a mother or a father (one parent died when they were young). This gets me to a question about gay parents. If a child has two fathers, wouldn’t she also be at risk of some deficit lacking a mother? Similarily, wouldn’t a son of lesbian parents be at greater risk of some deficit lacking a father?
[i]”M.W.: This is not an ‘us vs. them’ proposition. If we are to be inclusive, then there is no reason for differentiation.”[/i]
Other than the Gay Pride Parade, Black Family Day, NOW… and hundreds of other imported rituals and practices allowed people originating from other cultures. I get it… celebrate all races, religions and cultures except traditional white, Christian, American culture.
JB: [i]This sounds like bias against a specific group of people. If I could re-invent myself as a gay, black female I might be okay with that kind of statement. However, I was born this way… so why are others trying to make me feel bad about it?[/i]
I am a heterosexual middle-age male of WASP heritage, and I don’t think I have an inferiority complex over who I am or what I hope to do with my life and career. If my homosexual co-workers or neighbors receive the right to same-sex marriage, I don’t think my heterosexual marriage would feel cheapened. I fail to understand why I should share your concern over this issue.
JB: [i]Getting back to the parenting thing… I know several people getting long-term regular counseling over unresolved childhood issues from not having a mother or a father (one parent died when they were young). This gets me to a question about gay parents. If a child has two fathers, wouldn’t she also be at risk of some deficit lacking a mother? Similarily, wouldn’t a son of lesbian parents be at greater risk of some deficit lacking a father?[/i]
I don’t know. I’m not sure I could identify anyone who really had a perfect upbringing. I think we live in a society that tends to make you think something is wrong with you. It keeps the diest/weight-loss industry, the self-help industry, pharmaceutical industry, therapy industry going; in fact, the whole free market relies on you thinking that something is missing in your life. If everyone felt perfectly well-adjusted, can you imagine the economic tailspin we’d be in right now?
Rich: I know the use of “Democrat” instead of “Democratic” gets the goat of some people, but frankly I think it is a better word. You are a Republican and a member of the Republican Party. You are a Democrat and a member of a democratic party? “Democratic” in this case could be either an adjective or part of the proper noun but miss-punctuated. However, using the proper noun “Democrat Party” there is no confusion. Also, I am not keen on continuing to associate Democrats with being democratic when their trend is more toward socialism.
I am being asked to accept gay marriage, but the Dems cannot even handle a slight change to the way their Party’s name is labeled. Who is the progressive here?
whoops… wrong blog. I will repost. Don, can you delete?
If etiquette is all you’re worried about, then I’d say we’ve made progress. If the wedding is after Labor Day, don’t wear white.
[i]I know several people getting long-term regular counseling over unresolved childhood issues from not having a mother or a father (one parent died when they were young)
[/i]
Surely you are acquainted with a few people who are in long-term regular counseling because of poor parenting by heterosexual parents, too. Bad parents do cause psychological problems in their children.
The problem, Jeff, is that you are stating indirectly that having gay parents leads to harmful outcomes.
[i]wouldn’t a son of lesbian parents be at greater risk of some deficit lacking a father?[/i]
Not the ones I know. Beyond that, I can’t answer your question. Neither can you. I think you are contriving a problem. The fact that there are fatherless or motherless children is not an argument against any particular kind of marriage.
[i]we are supposed to celebrate differences and diversity, and then make sure fairness is legislated to the nth degree[/i]
Providing equal rights is not an extreme position, yet somehow you make it sound extreme.
Jeff:
My point is that I don’t care how someone self identifies. We don’t get to ‘choose’ whether we are male/female, heterosexual/homosexual, white/non-white. Those are genetic traits that are passed on to us by our biological parents without our consent. There are choices that we may make as individuals that may influence society’s interpretation of those genetic traits, but the underlying trait is set by others and outside of our control.
I choose not to differentiate between people based on those innate genetic traits and I don’t choose to judge their friendship or their worth to society based on their self-identified classifications.
That doesn’t mean that I don’t notice the difference between men and women, the color of their skin, or the color of their hair or eyes for that matter. I notice, I just don’t choose to use those physical manifestations as a reason to put them in a category.
President Obama self identifies as ‘Black’ but that doesn’t make him a “Black President” as to my knowledge there is no place in the U.S. Constitution that describes the position of “Black President.”
I view a homosexual couple’s desire to marry as being entirely equal to my own desire for the same union. Since our Civil Society has chosen to bestow certain rights on me as a married citizen, then I believe that a homosexual couple should have those same rights bestowed on them as well to an equal degree.
Finally, I have no interest in making you ‘feel bad’ about how you choose to self identify, nor about your predetermined genetic traits, especially since I likely share many if not most of those traits. I simply am saying that your ‘us vs. them’ approach needs to change if we are ever going to be the “full integrated” society you proclaim already exists.
Mark
Mark,
You are skirting my point. How can we celebrate specific diversity of race, sexual orientation and culture and say we are all equal? You and I are probably 100% on the same page for a desire for equality, but apparently you don’t see a problem with the demands for exclusive social rights while at the same time demanding equal rights? Why the hell do we celebrate Day Pride day and Black Family Day if we are all equal? Why do we still need afirmative action… and laws and regulations that give preference to minority and women owned businesses. Why do we have hate crime laws if we are all equal? These groups that want to be treated equal… lose the trappings of exclusivity and just practive being American. Then I will support their grab for equality with gusto. The exception to this is my continued opinion that, all things being equal, two gender parents are surperior to same-sex parents.
[i]”Surely you are acquainted with a few people who are in long-term regular counseling because of poor parenting by heterosexual parents, too. Bad parents do cause psychological problems in their children.
The problem, Jeff, is that you are stating indirectly that having gay parents leads to harmful outcomes.”[/i]
Don: why do gay marriage supporters always fall back to using a comparison of some broken or dysfunctional straight family? Of course there are alternative parenting configurations that improve any situation where the traditional-married couple are sucky parents. Are you making a case that gays are better skilled parents than the average straight couple? That would be a hoot for you to defend!
I am making a point (a very strong point I think), that there is a greater risk of psychological or emotional damage to a child lacking a mother or father.
[i]”The fact that there are fatherless or motherless children is not an argument against any particular kind of marriage”[/i]
Hmm… well I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. I’m not saying that good parenting can’t happen from non-traditional situations… what I do believe is that there are greater risks for impacted psychological or emotional development lacking a male father or female mother. It would be such a hot potato; I doubt any researchers would even feel safe launching a study. However, eventually I expect that we will learn of some higher level of struggle for children of gay parents when the comparison does not include broken, abusive families and single parent households.
Have your hoot.
[url]http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/06/07/peds.2009-3153.full.pdf[/url]
Don, your reference site appears to require a membership. Note that I am eager to see any article indicating that gay parents are better parents. In that case I guess we should stop referring to them as equal, since they would be superior.
Jeff, here’s the abstract.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to document the psychological adjustment of adolescents who were conceived through donor insemination by lesbian mothers who enrolled before these offspring were born in the largest, longest running, prospective, longitudinal study of same-sex–parented families.
METHODS: Between 1986 and 1992, 154 prospective lesbian mothers volunteered for a study that was designed to follow planned lesbian families from the index children’s conception until they reached adulthood. Data for the current report were gathered through interviews and questionnaires that were completed by 78 index offspring when they were 10 and 17 years old and through interviews and Child Behavior Checklists that were completed by their mothers at corresponding times. The study is ongoing, with a 93% retention rate to date.
RESULTS: According to their mothers’ reports, 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 in Achenbach’s normative sample of American youth. Within the lesbian family sample, no Child Behavior Checklist differences were found among adolescent offspring who were conceived by known, as-yet-unknown, and permanently unknown donors or between offspring whose mothers were still together and offspring whose mothers had separated.
CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents who have been reared in lesbian-mother families since birth demonstrate healthy psychological adjustment. These findings have implications for the clinical care of adolescents and for pediatricians who are consulted on matters that pertain to same-sex parenting.
Pediatrics 2010;126:000
” or is it about mainstreaming homosexuality?”
Musser
Then would you consider your position being about “side lining homosexuality”, or in other words discriminating against homosexuals since you seem to be taking an opposing position ?
Jeff:
[i]You are skirting my point.[/i]
No, I am saying that your point is irrelevant
.
[i]How can we celebrate specific diversity of race, sexual orientation and culture and say we are all equal? [/i]
How do these celebrations of self-identification say anything at all about equal rights. I self define as Christian. Does that mean that those who self define as Jewish, Muslim or Agnostic should have different Civil Rights than me? Obviously no.
I don’t wear a yarmulke, wash my feet before praying towards Mecca, or attend church every Sunday, but none of those outward manifestations of my personal choices say anything at all about my opinion of people who choose to so. I have never been told that I have to do any of those things, nor have I been required to have ‘gay pride’ or celebrate ‘black family day.’ If I or others want to do those things, it is completely fine with me, and should be with you as well as these celebrations do not impact you any more than they do me, unless you choose to let them.
[i]You and I are probably 100% on the same page for a desire for equality, [/i]
No, I choose to celebrate diversity and argue for equality.
[i]but apparently you don’t see a problem with the demands for exclusive social rights while at the same time demanding equal rights? [/i]
Sorry, you are the one in this conversation demanding exclusive rights (marriage for heterosexual couples only).
[i]Why the hell do we celebrate Day Pride day and Black Family Day if we are all equal? Why do we still need afirmative action… and laws and regulations that give preference to minority and women owned businesses. Why do we have hate crime laws if we are all equal? [/i]
Simply put because there remain a large portion of our society that believes, apparently as you do, that your ‘Principles’ and ‘Beliefs’ are more important than their reality
.
Jeff, if I judged you solely on the basis of your comments on this blog it would be very easy to tag you, and therefor dismiss you, as a b*******, h*********, c*********** C********, D****-H*** n****** who should simply be ignored. I choose to view you however as an intelligent and thoughtful commentator who has a different point of view than me. You deserve my respect (and have it) because you are stating your opinions openly without hiding behind a pseudonym, and are willing to take part in the conversation. Calling you names (even in my head) would be completely counterproductive. I respectfully suggest that the conversation will be more productive if you will stop labeling others, and view their expectation for equal rights as being on a par with your own. It doesn’t matter what your personal ‘beliefs’ are, just what our Constitution says our ‘rights’ are.
Equal rights means just exactly that. Equal.
Jeff, the consensus in the scientific literature is that having two parents (gay, straight, or otherwise) is better than having only one parent. It is also the consensus based on the literature to date that kids of gay parents have no worse adjustment than kids of straight parents. Of course, science is an incremental process and over time the tide may turn against gay parents, but if the current trend continues, people will stop researching this because it would be a useless exercise and add nothing to our knowledge that we don’t already know.
“I am making a point ( a very strong point I think )that there is a greater psychological risk to a child who is missing a mother or a father.
I would counter that what is really important to a child growing up is the existence of a network of caring adults who are clear about the role in nurturing the child. In some societies this is actually one or both of the grand parents. In other societies it may be the mother alone with the man having essentially no child rearing responsibilities. It may be an aunt or other single relative or village elder whose role is child care .
Just because you were raised in a nuclear family consisting of one mother figure and one father figure and thus considered this the norm and the best system does not objectively make it so. There are many different systems of family organization, all of which will be tremendously successful for some individuals and challenging for others.
medwoman: My father developed mental health problems when I was 8 (I was the oldest of three, my brothers were 8 and 6) and my mother divorced him when I was about 11. She worked full time at about minimum wage to try and support us. I had to help. She got a new boyfriend when I was 12 and lived with him until they married when I was 14. I was adopted by the new dad when I was 17 (try changing your last name while in high school… that was fun). I won’t get into detail about this life experience (note, it wasn’t a fairy tale… let’s just say I grew up very quickly), but with this and many other family and friend observations I have a very strong sense of the value of having a committed, loving male father around.
I wish those defending gay marriage would stop including the inventory of bad family situations. Frankly, my brothers and I (especially the middle brother) may have been better off with committed, loving lesbian mothers that stayed together. I am not arguing that gay couples cannot make terrific parents. The argument you and others seem to be making is that gay parents are equal to straight parents. There have been no studies that have compared long-term married, committed, loving, straight and gay parents of equal socio-economic status. The lack of controlled data makes all studies suspect as being backed by a political agenda.
The village argument is so Hillary Clinton. It does not take a village if the family is strong. In fact, I would argue a strong family is required to combat the damage done by the village.
rdcanning: I will get back to you on the study. I have it now and will read it. Many of the comments I am seeing indicate that there are significant problems with the comparison dataset. For example…
[quote]What is clear is that they did not compare the outcome of adolescents from married heterosexual families who stayed together throughout the study to adolescents from lesbian parents who stayed together throughout the study.[/quote]
Again, the lack of rigor in this and other “studies” is a strong indication that they were funded propoganda and not try science.
Note that the study [url]http://www.nllfs.org/[/url] was funded by pro-lesbian, pro gay marriage groups. The pictures on the website tell it all.
[i]The argument you and others seem to be making is that gay parents are equal to straight parents.[/i]
They can be, and it is irrelevant to the issue of equality of marriage rights.
Jeff:
I cited a similar study to you months ago and you dismissed it by labeling it as pro-gay propaganda. Why don’t you try rebutting the data, or cite contradictory studies, rather than defaulting to name calling? If you can, great, if you can’t, admit it. No harm, no foul.
Mark
Jeff – the “lack of rigor” is more an indication that this is just one study that was trying to follow families over time. It’s called “attrition” and “history.” It has nothing to do with propaganda! As I said, science is incremental. No one study answers all the problems. Every study has a section entitled: “Limitations.” Come on Jeff, every study I could cite has limitations – that doesn’t make them propaganda. It just makes them limited! I’m sure that Don was not saying that his Pediatrics study was the end of all studies.
What’s rigorous anyway? Have you ever tried to find a perfect comparison sample? Have you ever tried to follow subjects over 5-6 years and seen that people move, don’t show up for interviews, don’t return phone calls, etc. etc. Why is it propaganda because they didn’t have the perfect comparison sample or some people dropped out? What does that mean?
So, here is another article’s abstract. Notice that parenting process variables were more related to children’s adjustment than sexual orientation. It’s probably also the case that other variables such as domestic violence, drug use in the household, and physical/sexual abuse wipe out any poor adjustment due to sexual orientation. And also, note that this study used adoptive children in all three comparison groups. More rigorous than comparing to non-adoptive kids.
This study investigated child development and parenting in 106 families headed by 27 lesbian, 29 gay, and 50 heterosexual couples (80% White, M¼ 42 years) with young adopted children (41% White, M ¼ 3 years). Parents and teachers reported that, on average, children were developing in typical ways. Measures of children’s adjustment, parenting approaches, parenting stress, and couple relationship adjustment were not significantly associated with parental sexual orientation. However, several family process variables—parenting stress, parenting approaches, and couple relationship adjustment—were found to be significantly associated with children’s adjustment, regardless of parental sexual orientation. Implications for understanding the role of
gender and sexual orientation in parenting, as well as for legal and policy debates, are discussed. (Applied Developmental Science, Vol. 14, 2010, pp. 164-178)
The two studies cited are only two studies, there are many, many out there with similar conclusions.
JB
Once again much of your argument is based on denigrating those of differing philosophic outlook rather than examining the ideas being expressed. It may be easier to dismiss an idea by implying that any given individual couldn’t be correct in some idea just because you don’t agree with their politics, but it doesn’t add much to the discussion.
rdcanning:
Other than common sense, here are some references to refute the biased and incomplete studies you cite. There is really nothing rigorous and comprehensive available (to date) that gives me any comfort that the children of gay parents are not harmed by comparison to the children of a traditional father and mother. I understand why so much work has gone into circumventing and obfuscating any real facts on this, because it would be a big setback for the gay marriage movement.
Frankly, I take great offense at the suggestion that the average woman/lesbian can replace what fathers like me provide our sons and daughters. Maybe straight mothers feel differently… that one or two gay men can do the job as well (or better according to Don). My wife, like many people not willing to risk the scorn of the political correctness energy in this town, claims to not have an opinion. So it is my opinion that she is the much better choice than one or two gay male fathers considering the wellbeing of her children.
[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20642872[/url]
[quote]Ten narrative studies involving family histories of 262 children of gay fathers and lesbian mothers were evaluated statistically in response to Morrison’s (2007) concerns about Cameron’s (2006) research that had involved three narrative studies. Despite numerous attempts to bias the results in favour of the null hypothesis and allowing for up to 20 (of 63, 32%) coding errors, Cameron’s (2006) hypothesis that gay and lesbian parents would be more likely to have gay, lesbian, bisexual or unsure (of sexual orientation) sons and daughters was confirmed. Percentages of children of gay and lesbian parents who adopted non-heterosexual identities ranged between 16% and 57%, with odds ratios of 1.7 to 12.1, depending on the mix of child and parent genders. Daughters of lesbian mothers were most likely (33% to 57%; odds ratios from 4.5 to 12.1) to report non-heterosexual identities. Data from ethnographic sources and from previous studies on gay and lesbian parenting were re-examined and found to support the hypothesis that social and parental influences may influence the expression of non-heterosexual identities and/or behaviour. Thus, evidence is presented from three different sources, contrary to most previous scientific opinion, even most previous scientific consensus, that suggests intergenerational transfer of sexual orientation can occur at statistically significant and substantial rates, especially for female parents or female children. In some analyses for sons, intergenerational transfer was not significant. Further research is needed with respect to pathways by which intergenerational transfer of sexual orientation may occur. The results confirm an evolving tendency among scholars to cite the possibility of some degree of intergenerational crossover of sexual orientation.[/quote]
[url]http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2005/may/05053106[/url]
[quote]Experts Worldwide Find Gay Adoption Harmful for Children
[/quote]
[url]http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/fatherhood/chaptertwo.cfm[/url]
[quote]The Importance of Fathers in the Healthy Development of Children
[/quote]
[i]”Once again much of your argument is based on denigrating those of differing philosophic outlook rather than examining the ideas being expressed”[/i]
Denigrating of politicians is allowed. Look it up. Just look at what your side of politics said about GWBush. However, I did both… denigrate and examine the ideas. “It takes a village”, like all Clinton words and phrases delivered – except “I did not have sex with that woman”, or “it depends what the definition of is is” – are well planned swipes at the oposition. This was a swipe at the GOP calling for a return to strong traditional family values.
In demonstrates a different worldview where families are less important. It also gets me a bit heated because “it takes a village” should include schools. Yet, what do I hear from you and others with left-leaning views… that parents should be carrying a heavier load to help their kids survive all the crappy schools.
Note that I assume lesbian moms can help their son with his math homework no less effectively than could a male father… and both would likely do a better job than the average high school algebra teacher.
1.[i] (or better according to Don)[/i]
I didn’t say that gay parents were better than straight parents. I was replying to your question, and gave you one published study (note: peer-reviewed journal, in the field) that showed that outcomes with children were not worse.
2. “lifesitenews.com”? Are you friggin’ kidding me? We present you with multiple sources that show your original premise was simply not borne out by research, and you link us to a pro-life propaganda site? I give up. You have a hopeless bias against scientific research, and apparently prefer phony news sites. Seriously, Jeff: try again.
3. Your study that “non-heterosexual identity” might be more common in families where there are non-heterosexuals seems barely relevant, unless of course you think that non-heterosexual identity is a problem (and I note that it doesn’t mean exclusively homosexual).
4. Fathers are important.
5. Nothing you have posted is a reason to ban gays from getting married.
6. I have no idea why you are dragging the Clintons into this.
Gays are here; always have been, always will be. Gay is normal. Gay teens need gay role models going about their lives just like straight people. Gay teen suicide can be reduced if gay adults are present in their lives as they develop their sexual identities. Gay people should be able to work and live anywhere, do all the things other adults can do, and not be ostracized or treated separately. Gay parents can raise perfectly well-adjusted children; they are doing it right now. People are not statistics and statistics are not the basis for marriage policies; if they were, divorce would be banned.
Your offense is highly misplaced. I can only imagine what gay parents reading this thread are thinking and feeling about how you devalue their achievements.
JB: I’m not sure how the study you provide buttresses either of our arguments. I’m not sure of what you are taking from the one study you provide (which notes that it is going against the grain of “scientific opinion” and consensus) and to what you are generalizing. Why are the two studies I cite any more biased than the one you cite, which is based on narrative work rather than more traditional data collection methods. Like all other scientific contributions, one piece of a larger puzzle.
The HHS pages are great, but again, you are taking them out of context and using them to argue a point they are not meant to make. The pages about fatherhood are very good advice but don’t really address your points. In the context they are written, they are meant to address the problem of absent fathers in single-mother families and preventing child abuse, not advocating for male-female parenting. I liked Appendix F at the end of the whole section which talked about all the things which make a good marriage – and never once mentioned mothers or fathers. Here’s the link: http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/fatherhood/append_f.cfm
And talk about biased. Why should I consider any material from a website that is blatantly anti-gay? If this is the kind of evidence you rely on, well, I don’t have a prayer.
Look, Jeff, we are on opposite poles on this issue. I’m not going to become a Christian, anti-abortion, traditional values guy any time soon. I just don’t believe that stuff. I think it is, in the long run, harmful to families and children and society. Just as I believe in public education and other public policy issues you and I have disagreed upon in the last few months.
And my hunch is that you are not going to become a secular humanist Buddhist who believes that gay marriage is OK and non-traditional values are probably OK.
I think your “evidence” is just as biased as you think mine is. I don’t believe you “evidence” is much more than religious belief gussied up to look like science. Your abstract of the guy with the narrative studies smacks of someone out to prove a point. Most good empirical researchers that I know may have opinions, but they also let the data do the talking. That was what I was taught about research and what I did when I was an active researcher. It’s fine to disagree with the results of the research – but unless you can do better than simply accuse the authors of “funded propaganda” (whatever that is) and not “true science” – you’re arguments don’t really hold much water. And yes, the data from the longitudinal study of lesbian families probably has a bias also – so what? You have one too – and so do I.
You seem to be arguing for some abstract truth that is out there. And is constantly threatened by those lefties and their gay/lesbian activist friends. As a psychologist, one thing I have learned is that people are far more complex than we think they are. And relationships – well, relationships come in all sorts of flavors and colors and just multiply the complexity of individuals. And that’s really the wonder of it. And yes, there are awful gay and lesbian families, just like there are awful Christian families (and probably Buddhist ones too). I just don’t subscribe to the notion that there is one almost-perfect family and all the rest are bad for kids.
So I’m not sure I’m interested in batting this stuff around much any more. I’m not going to convince you to change your beliefs, and I’m pretty sure you can’t show me startling evidence that will nudge me back toward your position.
rdcanning: [i]”Most good empirical researchers that I know may have opinions, but they also let the data do the talking.”[/i]
Both you and I know that the data and studies can be manipulated to skew the results. However, I don’t need a study for my point concerning the value of gendered parents because it is logical, rational and common sense. Even if I could be swayed by data, the studies done to date are inadequate to prove the point you and others are trying to make. For me the stakes are too high to accept anything other than very rigorous and comprehensive studies that compare all factors related to the health and well-being of the children of gay parents.
Note that I am not devout Christian. I don’t currently attend a church. In fact, there was a time in my life where I challenged my Christian upbringing… which was also not extreme. I am socially moderate on most things. My political tendencies are more libertarian. I do not hate gays. I don’t care what adults do with their lives to make themselves happy as long as it is legal (and some laws are stupid and need to change) and they do not unreasonably harm others. It warms my heart too that any two people would love each other and make a life-long commitment.
Other than a general distaste for government intrusion into my life and our traditional American culture, my entire focus of care is directed at children. Children do not have their own political voice and become pawns in political games. Adults in constant pursuit of their own selfish wants damage children every day. Our public school system is a jobs program for adults first and foremost. Democrats support the teachers unions because money flows from them to their campaigns. The kids, especially the inner city kids, have their lives destroyed from the lack of education reform. It is blocked by these adults more interest in protecting their job security, retirement, and union-driven political power.
Now we have another potential disregard for the developmental well-being of children so adults can get their way. However, gays can already adopt and lesbian couples can go the artificial route. There isn’t really any point to make other than the opinion that gay marriage should be a separate and special designation because of the differences in single-gender parents as it related to childhood development.
Note that I think there are many more people out there that agree with me, but they have better sense than to post… especially using their full name. I do so specifically because the lack of debate on the issue skews the sense of what the general tone of acceptance is out there. The gay rights crowd was surprised about the passing of prop-8. With their militant tactics, they only pushed the opinions underground… they didn’t change them.
However, I agree that we have beaten this to death and will not sway either of our opinions. I appreciate your quality posts and counter points. Time to move on to the next topic!
JB: [i]My political tendencies are more libertarian.[/i]
I would think that this issue would give you a chance to establish a clear libertarian position, then. I think a true libertarian would not have a problem with same-sex marriage, as a ban on same-sex marriage would be an intrusion of government into people’s personal lives. One interesting individual who made a switch from opposing same-sex marriage to accepting same-sex marriage at some level, as he switched from Republican to a Libertarian, is Bob Barr. See [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr#Same-sex_marriage[/url]
[quote]I would argue a strong family is required to combat the damage done by the village.[/quote]
LOL I live this quote Jeff! Sums up my feelings exactly!
JB
Perhaps you have forgotten my previous comments in posts regarding Measure A that I feel that it is primarily the parents responsibility to educate their children and that schools whether private or public are merely a resource towards that goal. I would think that you would find this in line with your stated preference for the primacy of the nuclear family. Instead, you seem to feel that parents should abdicate their central position in the lives of their children when it comes to education.
With regard to your ongoing proposition that the nuclear family is superior to other familial arrangements, I would call to your attention the
40+ % divorce rate in this country. As a business man can you think of an institution, process, service or product that you would consider superior if demonstrated to fail 40% of the time ? Note that I have not said that traditional marriage is not successful for some. I am aware of a number of highly successful, longstanding heterosexual unions. But I hardly think that one has a basis in reality for claiming that the superiority of an institution demonstrated to be unsuccessful 40 % of the time is “common sense”.
[i]” it is primarily the parents responsibility to educate their children and that schools whether private or public are merely a resource towards that goal”[/i]
I agree in principle with this, but the public schools are a crappy resource. I am not trained to teach my kids algebra, the teachers are. So why are they so damn bad at it?
I remember reading that the statistics for traditional and gay couples are materially the same, so I don’t understand your point about the 40% divorce rate as it relates to my opinion that two gender parents are better than one gender parents when all other things are equal or similar. Even when parents divorce they are supposed to stay active in supporting their children. I would say that it is even MORE important to have two gender parents in a divorce situation. A child having divorced gay parents would be at greater risk for development deficiencies in my opinion.
I do agree that the 40% divorce rate is dismal. However, over the last few years the divorce rate has declined and is at its lowest level in the last 37 years. Some analysts say the reason is the economy and that many struggling couples cannot afford to divorce. Given that divorce is a terrible financial decision anyway, I think that makes some sense. However, there seems to be other reasons why the divorce rate is declining. For example, more people living together without getting married. Fewer people getting married. More people are getting married later in life.
I find it interesting that U.S. divorces began to increase in the 1960s before shooting up in the 1970s and early 1980s. During this time period, most states had made it easier to get a divorce by adopting no-fault divorce laws. Also, the 1960s was the beginning of the” me-first” baby boomers to launch from their parents of the greatest generation. So, we flooded the population with more selfish people and armed them with easy divorce capability… no surprise what happened. Also add the women’s rights movement and we have a recipe for increased marital disillusionment.
Today more women than men hold college degrees and women’s recent earnings growth surpassed men’s. More young women are career-focused and not family-focused. The number of young women saying they do not plan to marry and have children is actually quite alarming. It may be that they have developed this opinion after experiencing and ever-shrinking compatible dating pool (all those guys without college degrees are icky!). However, many just say they want to travel and hang with their girlfriends and not be tied down.
All of this brings me back to the main reason why I am against gay marriage. I see it as just another of a long list of social changes that will continue to erode the institution of marriage, procreation and child development. If these things were products sold by a private-sector public company, I would very bullish on the stock today. Europe is our example of where we are headed… a civilization in decline because birthrates have fallen far below sustainable. It will mean 30 years from now more Europeans will lack aunts or uncles or cousins than will have them. It will mean more old people and fewer young people. It will mean that they will have to import young people from other cultures… and it will erode the very culture they valued and sought to protect. Europeans are starting to wake up about this, and are rejecting multiculturalism as a first response. However, this does not get to the root of their problem.
In the US, all those young men and women that delayed or rejected marriage and children will grow old one day and consider their decisions that left them without the joys of relatives. Of course they will have to look to the state to provide their care. But it will never be good enough because as W said, government is never a loving institution. But then again, these new old people from the selfish generation will have terabytes of images from all the vacations they took over the years. Al least they will have something to do over the holidays.
Medwoman, since you brought up the US divorce rate, what are your recommendations for how to improve it?
JB
1) the 40 % divorce rate I cited has nothing to do with your opinion about the genders of the separating couples. It has to do with your uncompromising defense of an institution ( the one man one woman nuclear family) as inherently better “because it is common sense.”
Common sense and observation of the facts would lead my to believe that an institution with a 40% failure rate is not inherently the best possible model.
2 I think that asking the question how would I improve the divorce rate is asking the wrong question. When I dream of what I would like to see for our society, I do not start with a preconceived notion of any particular model as an ideal that I feel every one should adhere to. I believe that this is the antithesis of freedom. For anyone to proclaim their preferred family structure or culture is superior and that others must defer to it is again the antithesis of freedom. It is also the antithesis of responsibility since all it requires is subservience to a pre established set of rules. So for me the more pertinent question would be, what would I recommend to improve our society?
With regard to the issue at hand, gay marriage, my answer is simple. I would grant all consenting adults exactly the same rights. Note I didn’t say more rights, special rights or different rights. I said the same. Equality was one of the founding principles of our country. Through much of our history this principle has not been adhered to but equality regardless of race, gender,religion, ethnicity, is one of my highest aspirations for our society. I believe that the establishment of true equality would do more to address many of our societal problems than would the enforcement of any one set of beliefs.
medwoman:
Sorry, but I was sticking to the topic of gay marriage. The divorce rate is irrelevant unless you are making a case that it will be different for gays. I don’t.
The “common sense” is that two gendered parents are better than one gendered parents when it comes to raising children to well-functioning adults secure in their gender and their ability to relate to members of the opposite sex. You cite studies to make your point and I cite and lack of rigorous studies and common sense to make my point.
My libertarian senses are truly bothered by the lack of freedoms for gays to marry. But they are equally bothered by a government telling the population they must accept something that goes against their principles and their culture that has precedence. My tilt goes to the latter and not the former primarily because of the point about the development deficiencies of children of gay parents.
Note also that I think that liberal/progressives take the concept of separation of church and state way too far. They are obsessed with it and have corrupted the original intent of our founders and framers.
[quote]“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams[/quote]
Gays and gay supporters should be perfectly happy with civil unions providing the same legal rights and protections. The difference in identification would allow us to identify the children of gay parents as needing supplemental exposure for their sexual and relationship skills development. I can accept that you disagree with this opinion.
Jeff, what are the “development deficiencies of children of gay parents?” Show us the studies that document these deficiencies, please!
Jeff, you delight in spearing government interference in daily life yet you make statements such as “Gay and gay supporters SHOULD [emphasis added] be perfectly happy…”
If that’s not telling people how to live their lives, I don’t know what is. The libertarian in you SHOULD [my emphasis] be cringing everytime you use the word “should.”
rdcanning:
[quote]- Adolescent females between the ages of 15 and 19 years reared in homes without fathers are significantly more likely to engage in premarital sex than adolescent females reared in homes with both a mother and a father.
Source: Billy, John O. G., Karin L. Brewster and William R. Grady. “Contextual Effects on the Sexual Behavior of Adolescent Women.” Journal of Marriage and Family 56 (1994): 381-404.
[/quote]
[quote]- The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states, “Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse.”
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics. Survey on Child Health. Washington, DC, 1993
[/quote]
[quote]A family structure index — a composite index based on the annual rate of children involved in divorce and the percentage of families with children present that are female-headed — is a strong predictor of suicide among young adult and adolescent white males.
Source: Patricia L. McCall and Kenneth C. Land, “Trends in White Male Adolescent, Young-Adult and Elderly Suicide: Are There Common Underlying Structural Factors?” Social Science Research 23, 1994.
[/quote]
[quote]Fatherless children are at dramatically greater risk of suicide.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.
[/quote]
[quote]Boys who grow up in father-absent homes are more likely that those in father-present homes to have trouble establishing appropriate sex roles and gender identity.
Source: P.L. Adams, J.R. Milner, and N.A. Schrepf, Fatherless Children, New York, Wiley Press, 1984.
[/quote]
[quote]In 1988, a study of preschool children admitted to New Orleans hospitals as psychiatric patients over a 34-month period found that nearly 80 percent came from fatherless homes.
Source: Jack Block, et al. “Parental Functioning and the Home Environment in Families of Divorce,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27 (1988)
[/quote]
[quote]In a longitudinal study of 1,197 fourth-grade students, researchers observed “greater levels of aggression in boys from mother-only households than from boys in mother-father households.”
Source: N. Vaden-Kierman, N. Ialongo, J. Pearson, and S. Kellam, “Household Family Structure and Children’s Aggressive Behavior: A Longitudinal Study of Urban Elementary School Children,” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 23, no. 5 (1995).[/quote]
[quote]”Children from mother-only families have less of an ability to delay gratification and poorer impulse control (that is, control over anger and sexual gratification.) These children also have a weaker sense of conscience or sense of right and wrong.”
Source: E.M. Hetherington and B. Martin, “Family Interaction” in H.C. Quay and J.S. Werry (eds.), Psychopathological Disorders of Childhood. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1979)[/quote]
OK, I give up – how do these articles address the question I posed: “What are the developmental deficiencies of the children of gay parents”?
Jeff, if you went into a graduate seminar and cited these articles as evidence of developmental deficiencies of the children of gay parents you might have some difficulty passing. What you seem to have presented are some articles about families with no father – not children of gay parented families.
Also, the lack of rigor in these studies suggest paid propaganda. And we all know data can be manipulated to whatever the biased opinion of the researcher.
Come on Jeff, you can’t acuse me of using biased research and then turn around and use more research (possibly biased – but certainly off target) to somehow support your point.
Rdc: I can’t help you. I gave you what you asked for. However you choose to ignore or denigrate the facts because it does not fit what you choose to believe. it is simple… There is copious material out there that confirms that a lack of a father or mother results in development deficiencies for some kids. Two mothers or two fathers may be better than a single parent, but a gay man cannot replaces a female mother nor a lesbian woman replace a male father no matter how much you desire it to be. It is common sense and it is proved by science. Did you even read any of the references?
You and others argue againt this in such absolutes it is mind boggling… It seems to indicate either a loss of objectivity or desperation to prevent this argument from being heard.
The idea that two lesbian women can grow the same functional adult man from a child or that two gay men can grow the same functional adult woman from a child as can a husband-wife team is ludicrous. It is not common sense. As a male father I take great offense to the suggestion that a woman or woman team can do the job as well. They may do a good job, but not the best, and because of this they are not the preferred choice and should be identified as a different choice.
Jeff, the references all had to to do with single parent families (the Hetherington chapter is from almost 35 years ago – long before gay/lesbian parents became the subject of any systematic research). Single-parent family research doesn’t generalize to two-parent families. It’s about a different population. This is social science research 101 – you can’t generalize about one group with research from a different group. Let’s see if I can get it across:
If I did research on boys’ prepubertal social development and then tried to make generalizations about girls’ prepubertal development (this is just an example) based on the results of the research, it would get roundly criticized for being invalid because I was trying to mix apples and oranges.
Jeff – this is social science research, not common sense. I asked you to provide me research data about the problems of kids growing up in gay/lesbian families (two parent families) and you provide me with data about fatherless families (single-parent).
I hate to pull out the education card here, but I’m a card-carrying published social science researcher (google my name in google scholar). If you want to argue what the literature in this field suggests, go get an advanced degree in social science and we’ll talk. I don’t tell you how to conduct your business, please don’t suggest that you can make judgments based on a simple reading of the very large literature in this field.
It’s obvious that you do not understand how science operates to reach consensus or how to read the literature. Stick with business and I’ll stick with social science research. You simply don’t know what you are talking about and your opinions are simply that, poorly supported beliefs without scientific merit.
rc, as a educated and credentialed social science with a vested interest in the importance of his professions, is it possible that sometimes you cannot see the forest for the trees? As a business man, I certainly admit to that phenomenon. Just ask the executives running Lehman Brothers what that looks and feels like. The difference though, is that they had some skin in the game. Most scientists don’t… they can develop any wild theory and then only “their people” can challenge them. One last point… are you a parent? Have you raised children to become sex and relationship-secure adults?
Families and parents existed long before the profession of social scientist was invented. I value the work done, but like many things in the science realm today, there is tremendous justification to challenge it. The practice of science has become a libertarian’s nightmare. With media power and Democrat political power attached to it, it has far supplanted the fear of church-versus-state as a catalyst for corruption of our freedoms and culture.
I say sons and daughters benefit from having a male father and female mother, and you say “show me specific studies”. I am a business man so let me use an analogy that might help you understand where I am coming from. Let’s say that 10 years ago I demanded you cite specific studies to prove that the financial markets would suffer from the practice of giving mortgages to people not credit-worthy enough. Looking back it would sure be shameful that I didn’t allow for a large dose of common sense, right?
It is the lives of children we are talking about. I am not for for growing Einsteins in hindsight related to this like for the meltdown of the credit markets. We have to get it right out of the starting gate because even miniscule statistical proof that it causes a developmental deficiency in children is reason enough for me to demand we treat it differently. Experience as a parent, combined with what I provided you, is enough proof for me that there is material enough risk that children can be harmed without a parent of both genders.
I would simply say that the evidence you provided does not address the issue from a research standpoint and also from a policy standpoint. Policy is made not only on evidence provided by experts, but by input from all stakeholders. When the policymakers rely on narrow and uninformed opinions, then policy is poorly formed. You have your opinions about the outcomes of gay/lesbian parenting. It is, it seems to me based on your reasoning and statements in this dialogue, not based in evidence generated by social science but on what you call “common sense” and your personal idiosyncratic experience. That experience does not match what others experience and in fact may be a minority view (it also may not be). But to impose that on others because you think it is “right” is, in my mind, the worst kind of central planning and government intrusion into people’s lives. To your point about making decisions based on current results of research without taking a longitudinal view, most of the research you cited is cross-sectional in nature and not prospective and longitudinal. The first abstract presented in this discussion was of a 5-7 year prospective study of children of gay/lesbian parents (the Pediatrics article I believe). That’s the kind of research that allows us to make statements about development over time and combined with cross-sectional research bolsters arguments one way or the other. There has been research in medical fields that has lead us down the wrong path at times. But over time, as another commenter pointed out, science is self-correcting. If we find later on that gay/lesbian parenting produces harm in children then my hunch is that the policy-makers will move to make changes. On the other hand, one could say that we are currently in a self-correction to policies and research that declared homosexuality to be a mental disorder and harmful to children and adults alike. The changes in our society in the last forty years or so vis a vis views of homosexuality and it’s place in our society have been, I believe, positive and not the erosive force that you seem to espouse. I don’t believe we should go back to the way things were, and I for one, welcome the openness and diversity that we, particularly in Northern California, have and promote.
[i]But to impose that on others because you think it is “right” is, in my mind, the worst kind of central planning and government intrusion into people’s lives.[/i]
This is exactly my consideration too… there is a group of people that believe they know what is right and they are determined to make me follow their new rules. Remember, pop-8 was passed by a majority in the most liberal state in the union.
What’s more intrusive… gays couples cannot claim they are “married” (note that this has been the case for the entire existence of this great country), or government telling the rest of us that we have to change our historical and cultural definition of marriage to include gays and also be told that we cannot establish any social mechanisms to deal with differences in the development of children of gay parents because science doesn’t support it and hence it would be a form of bias and discrimination.
To associate the travesty of slavery and racial discrimination to this issue is laughable. The gay marriage issue is based on manufactured indignation for primarily political and ideological reasons. If you can claim it hurts gays because government “only” allows civil unions with equal protections, then it is equally acceptable to claim that others would be hurt by the government to force them to accept something they do not believe in.
Marriage is not just a public building that all should be able to visit. It is a very important cultural and social institution and we are fools to think there are not going to be impacts when we change it.
I don’t disagree that there are consequences when institutions and policies change. In this case I believe it is for the good and my hunch is that you believe something different.
I support the principle of allowing two same-sex people in love to enter a socially and culturally recognized union that provides them all the same material rights and protections of marriage while still providing for a means of differentiation for the purposes of identification of the unique development needs of the children of gay parents because I think, even though the few studies accepted by the intelligentsia are said to prove otherwise, that these needs are inevitable.
It is a nuanced opinion…
Think back to the women’s rights march that blindly approached the desire for equality. The view from the social progressives was that gender should not matter. Consider that we are only now discussing the realization that women choose different career paths because NOW has not found a way to produce a human male sea horse equivalent. Might this not have been one of those common sense realizations that, had we made it earlier, would have led to better outcomes? For example, businesses being encourage adopting mommy-friendly career path development?
As they say, this stuff is not rocket science.
I support same-sex marriage as a civil right. No hedging. I’m satisfied that good empirical research shows that children of same-sex couples are no poorer off than those of mixed-sex marriages. That’s my final answer and I’m sticking with it. And as Bob Dylan once said: “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.”
[i]””You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.”[/i]
rd, you and I are singing the same song, but in a different key. Fascinating!
I appreciate and respect your views and opinion on this very sensitive and difficult subject. Like they say, the things that are worth the most in life are often the most difficult.
JB: [i]The village argument is so Hillary Clinton. It does not take a village if the family is strong. In fact, I would argue a strong family is required to combat the damage done by the village.[/i]
ERM: [i]LOL I live this quote Jeff! Sums up my feelings exactly![/i]
I’ll assume these sentiments were made as some sort of commiserating dig at Hillary Clinton rather than disparaging expectations of human decency and civic duty. Please check out below how one person in our city expressed gratitude toward others. Jeff, Elaine, I hope you could expect me to exhibit care and concern toward your kids, and likewise I hope I could expect the same of either of you toward my kids were equivalent situations to occur.
Thanks for being our village
[url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/opinion/letters/thanks-for-being-our-village/[/url]