I thought I would take some time to respond to your three
sentence long comment with a blog post. I’m kind of wordy like that. :)
In my blog post on 20 Reasons Obama Does NOT Deserve Your Vote, I cited this as one of my reasons:
"Supporter of Same-Sex Marriage: While
some feel this would be an issue to support Obama on, the truth is that
legalizing same-sex marriage would be opening the door to basing the most
fundamental unit of society – the family - on a standard that insults reason,
religious conscience, and ultimately children."
This was
your comment on that particular reason in my blog post:
“You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own
facts. I want to address one in particular. Gay marriage is actually GOOD for
children: http://www.apa.org/about/
First of all, it’s really fun that you came up with your own variation on Romney’s zinger from
the presidential debate last week. He WAS rockin’. But, let me tell
you something missy/mister – you’re not entitled to call crappy research “fact!”
A nifty article just came out this Summer (July 2012), which debunks the
validity of the APA Brief you cited as fact. If you want to read the article in
its entirety, (which I recommend you do – I don’t want you to be missing out on
ANY good facts!), click
and read here.
Let me summarize what the article said with a series of
snips from the actual article and some commentary. First off, the article is called:
Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer
examination of the American psychological association’s brief on lesbian and
gay parenting
It is by Loren Marks, and was published in Volume 41, Issue 4 of Social Science Research:
Here are the abstract and the highlights from the article - the fast food summary of the article's contents, if you will:
Basically what it says is that most of the research out there on same-sex couples cited by the APA brief, was not conducted with basic principles of good science, and so therefore the strong assertions the APA made, don't hold. For example, here are some of the problems with the studies and claims made in the APA brief:
- Most all of the groups studied were too similar (white, women, highly-educated, middle-upper class) - so they cannot be applied to a broader and more diverse population, like the brief tries to do.
- 26 of the 59 studies didn't even have a comparison group. (Yikes!) Of the 33 remaining studies, 13 used single parent homes as the comparison group, and the other 20 didn't make clear what the status of the heterosexual families' situations were: divorced, remarried, co-habitating, nuclear family, single-parent? (It has been well-documented that children from single-parent homes, and co-habitating homes, do not do as well as children from homes raised by their biological, married parents.)
- The studies used small sample sizes which favored the result of "no
difference." The statistical power was too low, this was a "Type II
error" (saying there's no difference when there is in fact a
difference), and this was an error common to most of the studies.
- The outcomes they measured weren't long term (don't we want to know if being a child of a same-sex couple will affect you as an adult, in your own relationships?)
- The outcomes most of the studies measured were effects on the parents. Others that did study outcomes on children, only looked at vague things like "cognitive health, etc." rather than serious and important social indicators, like drug and alcohol abuse, sexual deviancy, early pregnancy, criminal activity, etc.
- They completely ignored the one study that was conducted with good scientific principles (larger groups, comparison groups, etc.) That good study used teacher reports, tests, and child reports, instead of subjective, biased parent reports to assess the results of the effects of same-sex parents on children.
With that one decent study in the bunch that the APA cited - the Sarantakos study (1996) - the annotated bibilograpy did not cite the results, but rather remarked that there was, "No abstract available." But when you see the results of the Sarantakos study, you can see why perhaps the APA chose not to cite it - it did in fact give legitimate concern for the effects of same-sex parenting on children compared to heterosexual married, and heterosexual co-habitating couples (even after controlling for things like poverty, minority status, etc.):
The article also mentioned another book length study by Sarantakos (which the APA forgot to include . . . ) which cited troubling information on the long-term effect of same-sex parents on children:
But let's be fair - there are only a couple of decent studies out on this issue right now. So, we can't say anything 100% conclusive on the issue, like for example, your statement that "same-sex marriage is GOOD for Children." But, what we DO actually, empirically know is NOT promising. And what we DO know from looking at decent and scientifically-minded articles like this one, is that the American Psychological Association seems much more intent on deceitfully promoting a liberal social agenda than in using good scientific research to do so.
Perhaps, on another occasion, I'll address my other reasons for opposing same-sex marriage, but for today, I think this will do.
Just to let you know, only quoting one article isn't very factual. And all of my psychology and social science professors at BYU have read many, many peer-reviewed articles that find no difference between same-sex and heterosexual parents.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous -
DeleteDid you even read this blog post? Or the actual article I cited? It was a review of the review you cited. It's time you and perhaps your social science professors from BYU, started learning some basics of good science. The article I summarized has already been cited 143 times and it has only been out a few months. That is because it looked at all the "many, many peer-reviewed articles" and found almost all of them to all work within the same framework of errors. If you want to say that there is no difference between same-sex and heterosexual parents, you need to compare the same-sex couples to the scientifically proven gold standard of families - the nuclear family united in marriage.
Anonymous,
DeleteWhy don't you show us who you really are? A scripture comes to mind...
2 Nephi 28:9
"Yea and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels with the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark."
If you truly believe what you are saying, and you believe it is backed up by God, reveal your true identity.
I am a Mormon. I know it. I live it. I love it!
Dear Anonymous: I think this blog post is a very valid response to your comment. You brought up one (single) particular article. And she addressed the validity of that one article. On a slightly different note; One of the reasons why I don't care for politics these days is everyone has already picked a side. Meaning, that no matter what the one side says, even if it is true or good, the other side is not going to like it.
ReplyDeleteThis article was a review of the review that you put a link up to in your comment. And one study can prove something, if it was done well. You think that your argument is so strong because it has so many studies backing it up. The weakness of your assumption lies in the fact that all of those studies commit the same sin! They use small sample sizes and compare a homosexual couple to a single parent home or no comparison group at all. So even though you have multiple studies on your side, THEY ARE ALL CRAP! The strength of multiple studies is that they have diverse methods, and arrive at the same conclusion. But since the studies that are cited in your first link all commit the same sin, there is no strength in numbers. The authors can't prove there is a statistical difference (which it was in their interest to not prove), because their sample size is too small.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to prove that homosexual couples raise kids as well as heterosexual people go head-to-head with the best there is--the traditional family structure, not co-habitating people or single-parent families. Even if the studies which you hold so dear were valid, they would only prove that same-sex couples raise kids as well as a single parent or a co-habitating couple, which we already know do not do as well as a traditional parenting structure. When the studies say there was no difference between the children raised by a homosexual couple and a "heterosexual parent(s)" they are misleading, they aren't comparing the same-sex couple to a traditional family.
It is so dang annoying that we even have to have studies to show these things, especially when talking to other people of faith. I've always known, even without studies, that the traditional family is the best way to raise kids--it's obvious, everyone's grandma knows it. Stop fighting for evil. Do you want homosexuals to be able to adopt children as readily as people who have a traditional family structure?
Hi - respectful opinion, coming your way:
ReplyDeleteWhat I got from this is that the studies that have been done on this topic so far definitely have been biased to some degree. Personally, this makes sense as the studies referenced only go back to the 80s, so I would assume the bulk of observations were gathered using anecdotal evidence from the few gay people who were comfortable enough to discuss their family, or able to acquire guardianship of a child.
It also seems like the effects of homosexual parenting wasn't exactly the subject of a lot of the "bad" studies referenced in this article, so to me it would make sense that they wouldn't have a "nuclear family" type control group. The referenced studies do seem to have semi-relevant topics pertaining to homosexuality, so they could mention something about homosexual parenting effects, but just a skimming of the titles, it seems like for a lot of them, a heterosexual married family control group wouldn't have made sense.
What I think is more relevant to the adoption question at heart here is if it's more beneficial for a child to be in a homosexual household, or even a single-parent household where the child is wanted and cared for instead of being in foster care or other state living situation. From a purely economic perspective, I would think it costs the government more to maintain, educate, then (more often) jail or provide welfare for that child than to find a suitable person to care for the kid, even if it's just one person in the world who wants to give that kid a better life.
I just think if there are still children out there that need to be adopted under the current system and people out there who want to adopt them, we should throw some conclusive science towards the benefit of having more people be able to adopt vs. keeping kids in state care.
I'm thinking the most impartial way to gather this data is to look at arrest/conviction records, and what types of families violent/repeat offenders come from. I will try to do some google-fu research on this topic and get back to you. If we find out that homosexual/single households are worse than state care in terms of creating people who are eventually dependent on the government via welfare or prison, I would agree that we have proven your hypothesis!
Please let me know what you think. Main point in a nutshell: I believe that kids who don't have any people to care for them are worse off than those who have one or more people to care for them, thus marital status should not be a determining factor in an adoption because at this time we don't have conclusive science to back up any benefit to keeping a child in state care over the care of an individual/union who wants them.
Thanks!
Jane –
DeleteHere are a couple of helpful links I found when I was educating myself on this subject a bit:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/who-can-adopt-child-30291.html
While married heterosexual couples are given priority in the adoption arena – by birth mothers and agencies alike - non-traditional families CAN and DO still adopt children. Only Utah and Florida have bans on gays and lesbians adopting children.
http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/FactOverview/foster.html
I think it could be interesting to research outcomes of foster care children with non-traditional family structures as a compared to children in state care. However, children in foster care especially, suffer from much higher levels of drug and alcohol addiction, and psychological problems – presumably from the mistreatment of their biological mothers in the womb, or from parent(s) and others after birth. There are so many variations when the children are adopted from foster care, (length of time waiting for parents’ rights to be relinquished, length of time waiting to be adopted, adopted by foster parents, return to biological parent(s), adopted by non-relatives or relatives, etc.) So, gathering research might prove to be ineffective with so many conflicting factors influencing the outcomes. These kids have a rough shot at life, probably no matter who adopts/fosters them. And that is the sad truth of it all.
Now, it’s not that I don’t see value in doing what we can to help children in distress like this, but I think that approaching the problem from your angle is a bit backwards. It would be a case of caring for a symptom, instead of the source of the symptom. And I propose that focusing on that symptom, instead of the source would ultimately be more costly, and hurt more children in the long run.
Imagine for example, that there is a really scary drop-off on one of the bends of a curvy mountain road. Lots of cars, go too fast around the mountain bend, fly off the edge, and roll down the cliff. Many die, many are horribly injured. It’s a terrible situation. What is the best way to go about fixing the problem? Should there be an ambulance placed permanently at the ready at cliff’s bottom? OR should a really strong and sturdy guardrail be secured around that dangerous bend instead? Perhaps some warning signs could be placed notifying drivers of the potential danger? With a guardrail, perhaps a really wild driver or two could make it over and roll down the cliff, but overwhelmingly the rail would prevent that happening, and save many, many lives in the process.
DeleteThe guardrail fix is the approach I see as the wisest one to take when we talk about caring for children and protecting marriage (an institution which should first and foremost be centered in principle around the interests of children – not the self-interest of adults.)
A few guardrail ideas: We should encourage pre-marital counseling to couples planning to get married. We should promote literature that talks about how to have a successful marriage (having similar values and religions, having open communication, caring for spouses needs, etc.) The abstinence portions of sex-ed in schools should be expanded and talk about the incredible benefits of waiting to have sex until marriage. More importantly than the sex-ed though, parents need to teach their children these lessons about sex and relationships in open, honest and loving ways that they too often do not. Single women who are pregnant should be offered counseling about adoption. No-fault divorces should be much more difficult to obtain – especially in families with children. Negative statistics on co-habitation should be made more public. We certainly should not do anything to hamper religious freedom (as passing gay marriage nationwide would and already has) – but we should respect and value religion in our society again, as it is an important way that children and families are reminded of morals central to healthy families and societies. Also, it is interesting that in your hypothesis you suggested that state care is more harmful to children than being cared for by a caring stable family/person. I agree – and that is exactly why I believe more families should make the sacrifice to have one parent (I’m partial to moms staying home) be the main caregiver. Children don’t belong in institutions like day-care, they need warm and attentive parents to guide them. And so on and so forth . . . These are the things that should get our highest level of attention and priority.
For religious reasons, I do not believe that homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children, period. At a minimum, religious institutions that do adoptions should have the right to discriminate and only allow married heterosexual couples to adopt. I believe homosexual couples (as well as other non-traditional families) should not be given preference or even equal treatment over married heterosexual couples in the adoption/foster care process when the research shows that the nuclear family is the gold standard for children – which is the current, though ever-changing state of things. To do so, sends a message that there is no family situation that is more ideal than another for children – and that is simply not true. With common practice like that, we could very well see non-traditional families adopting children who would have been adopted by married heterosexual couples. Legislation influences how people think and act, so we should have legislation (and everyday behavior/attitudes) that reflect preferential treatment to the choices people make which are in the best of children and ultimately society at large. The more we take personal responsibility for our own reproductive abilities, make choices in the best interest of children, and encourage others to do the same – the better off all children will be.
First of all, thank you for responding in a respectful way. I know you and I differ greatly in lifestyle, but it's very interesting to see that we do agree on a lot of points.
DeleteFor example, we both agree that two loving, married parents is the "gold standard" in child rearing, i.e. produces the most successful and well-adjusted children.
We agree that individuals need to take personal responsibility for their own reproductive abilities.
I absolutely agree that children raised by unmarried, cohabitating parents are at a disadvantage, although the issue of raising children is separate from adults who decide to cohabitate without children.
What I don’t agree with is your analogy of treating “symptoms” vs. “cause”. In all good medicine, treating both are an integral part of the healing process, and addressing all potential “cures” ultimately has a better chance of preventing the outcomes we agree are undesirable. Using your metaphor, wouldn't we all be safer if a guardrail was installed, as well as a warning sign AS WELL AS an ambulance nearby if a car does still manage to go off the cliff?
What I see working in our incredibly diverse society is a combination of approaches in an attempt to capture every “wild driver”. These individuals are “driving unsafely” for a multitude of reasons, and I feel it’s unlikely that we will find a one-size-fits-all solution.
From what I’m understanding, I believe we agree that the “problem” is children who are not properly cared for who turn into adults that don’t provide for themselves. The source of these children, as well as the care of existing children are all parts of this problem that need to be addressed.
The “source”: For some, the answer may be delaying sex until they are in the best place to care for a child (i.e. marriage) because they don’t want to use birth control. For others that have no problem with the use of birth control, the abstinence-only approach won’t make as much sense since that isn't the only way to prevent having an unwanted child. The point is to educate people in their reproductive years to take responsibility for their future and the future of their offspring through all possible options that promote health and happiness for all the individuals involved, including the scientific advances in reproductive health.
For the “symptom”: We agree that allowing people who want to and are able to care for a child to adopt is preferable vs. leaving this responsibility on the foster/state care system.
What I don’t understand is summarized by this comment: “We certainly should not do anything to hamper religious freedom (as passing gay marriage nationwide would and already has)”
DeleteI don’t understand how allowing people to marry who don’t share your beliefs has anything to do with your freedom to practice what you believe. Part of your reasoning for not allowing homosexual couples to adopt is because you believe married couples are the best situation to adopt kids into. And I agree. But I also think the similarities we see with homosexual couples and single parents raising children stems from a lack of equality in the eyes of the law, in that gay couples are essentially treated as a single parent.
Regardless of how you view these couples from a religious and moral perspective, based on the studies referenced, we truly don’t have accurate and fair data that measures any disadvantage of same-sex married couples to adopt children. From the data that we are able to verify, it would make sense to legislate adoptions based primarily on the marriage status of the people who want to adopt.
Stemming from this premise, it would not make sense to deny marriage on the basis of gender (an attribute that is legally protected against discrimination, akin to race or disability status) since there is a) no evidence that indicates married gay parents are less good for kids and b) evidence that suggests parents who are forced to be legally recognized as "single" face similar issues for kids as willingly unmarried parents.
To summarize, I believe we agree on the problem, and I believe we agree that as a country we need to have a better legal framework to address this problem. But from what I’m understanding, you are advocating only using certain approaches that may make sense for you, but don’t necessarily work for everyone. Unless we want to split up the US into separate sovereign nations over this issue, we'll need to figure out what will work for everyone.
Thanks for reading, please let me know what you think. If there’s any way WE can compromise, there may still be hope for our government!
Jane -
DeleteThanks for the 2 1/2 month wait for my response to your comment here! Things have been kind of busy around here with my new little baby, and it got away from me.
I also really appreciate your thoughtful and respectful comments. I'm sorry to say that I responded to the more troll-like comments below, before answering yours because my irritation got the better of me! But, not today. Today I am responding to your comment. Anywho . . .
I can see that you respect the institution of marriage as a means of creating stability for children. I think the main reason we differ on allowing same sex couples the right to marry is that I believe gender discrimination with regards to the marriage issue IS rational, and should therefore be legal because diversified gender has always been an essential ingredient to what the definition of marriage is.
Now, if we want to take away societal rules about what marriage has always been - a relationship only being between one man and one woman, who in principle are able to biologically create a child, and remain in fidelity - I believe it is only logical to allow anybody to marry anybody that they love. Polygamy and polygeny should be allowed, all sorts of combinations of polyandrous relationships, as well as the marriage between close relatives - whoever wants to marry whoever should be allowed to do so. To deny that to those groups of people when it is allowed for same sex couples - in my mind - is the only logical and fair course of action if by the logic that love of the marrying participants should be the new definition of marriage.
However, I think most people could find all sorts of objections to allowing those sorts of relationships being made legal. I certainly could! But, allowing gay marriage means that from a legal and rational standpoint we would have to allow that for people eventually, because allowing same sex marriage could never meet all of those standards of what the definition of marriage is currently limited to.
Because of this, as well as my belief that diversity in genders of parents (as well as their commitment to each other in marriage, and to their children) is an essential component to the general well-being of children, I believe that discrimination with regards to gender in the case of legal marriage contracts, should be enforced. If you really want, I'll dig up some articles. But, I think it is pretty common sense that homes without fathers produce some pretty negative statistics. Children, also need mothers! Children should not be denied a mother and a father if at all possible.
I don't believe that slapping the legal label of "marriage" on a relationship makes it magically produce the same results as the nuclear family. I think that the nuclear family produces the results it does, because it really is superior. Sexual diversity is an important element to best health of a family.
Now, I realize that people will make their choices to live how they will live. But, I believe as we move farther away from the rational legal definition of marriage, that what you (and I could in some very rare cases) see as a "cure" to a problem (children in foster care vs. adoption in to a stable home with no consideration of gender) would actually be a force to propel more social acceptance of even more relationships and family situations that are not healthy for children. Take for example, the introduction of the "No fault" divorce into law. Over time, divorce was no longer seen as socially unacceptable. When it really should be seen as a generally horrible and destructive choice for children and society. Social pressure, and laws that reflect a moral code based upon solid principles, limited by reason, encourage people to make better choices, and prevent a growing slip-slide of acceptance of choices that are harmful to the general health of all of society.
DeleteSo, we can talk about other ideas for cures to these social problems, but in my estimation - allowing same sex marriage would only create more problems in the short and long run for society as a whole.
I probably didn't explain this as elegantly as it deserves to be represented but I suggest you read these articles if you would like to better understand my argument against changing the definition of marriage:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155
http://theosophical.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/the-best-argument-i%E2%80%99ve-read-for-traditional-marriage-and-against-same-sex-marriage/
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/12/2217/
Thanks for reading. :) I'd be interested to hear what you have to say in response whenever you have the time.
P.S. Jane - Take a look at that TIME article Nicole cited. I just remembered a result that came out of that study that confirms my point here about gender. It said in the study, that. the children suffered no disadvantage whether their lesbian mothers stayed together or broke up. I think that would be the case because the children were at a disadvantage by not having a father at the start.
DeleteI do not need a scientific explanation for my stance. I know that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is led by a prophet of God. You can throw all the research you want at me, but I know the truth.
ReplyDeleteHere's the churches stance if you are interested:
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction
It goes over pretty much everything including adoption.
This is a well-written and comprehensive summary of the points of the article - thank you! It made me more aware and is making me think through my views more concretely.
ReplyDeleteIt is amazing how many studies there are that are poorly conducted are yet still thought of as fact! If I learned anything from my stats classes in college, it's to look at how the research was conducted. Ryan and I just laugh sometimes at all the studies that are quoted and summarized in magazines that are full of faulty research methods.
ReplyDeleteSERIOUSLY!! Haha. Even though it was kind of a miserable class for non-math-minded person like me, I'm so glad I took a stats class at BYU. It has been sooo helpful to being able to assess the validity of studies.
DeleteI think it's important to quote from Dallin H. Oaks talk (Protect the children) this last General Conference -
ReplyDeleteMost of the children born to unmarried mothers—58 percent—were born to couples who were cohabitating. Whatever we may say about these couples’ forgoing marriage, studies show that their children suffer significant comparative disadvantages. For children, the relative stability of marriage matters.
We should assume the same disadvantages for children raised by couples of the same gender. The social science literature is controversial and politically charged on the long-term effect of this on children, principally because, as a New York Times writer observed, “same-sex marriage is a social experiment, and like most experiments it will take time to understand its consequences.”
So, basically, while we don't currently have awesome scientific research on the subject, as a mouthpiece of God, he testifies that it is reasonable to assume children raised by same-gender couples fair similarly to those of non-traditional married families. AKA - Married families raise the "best" kids overall.
It's funny you mentioned this talk. It was exactly Oak's talk that gave me the encouragement to respond to that comment specifically. It is a good one!
DeleteThe study you cited was from 2005. There have been countless studies since then that have found the exact opposite of what you're suggesting. Children raised by two women in a same-sex relationship have actually turned out to be some of the most well-adjusted and successful people in our society. Any psychological studies will have their flaws, but have you seen the children coming from same-sex parents who have been defending their parents' relationships? These are bright, impressive young people who can speak as a testament to their parents' child-rearing abilities. I highly suggest that you pick up a copy of My Two Moms from your local library. Instead of looking for the study that best fits your own beliefs, why don't you listen to someone who can tell you what it was like to have two female parents?
ReplyDeleteAnd until then, stop trying to block other people from being happy together. Your distaste for same-sex couples will not keep them from loving each other or starting families together. Instead of contributing to the problem that makes it hard to be a kid of two same-sex parents, be the voice the accepting voice who loves and supports those children regardless. Don't call their parents sinners and don't tell your kids to stay away from their houses. All of these people are people. Support them.
Nicole -
DeleteFirst off, I don't think there could be any studies that have proven the exact opposite of what my 2012 study said about the 2005 study in just 7 years. But, please - link to those studies here so I can take a critical look at them.
The truth is though, that there have yet to be enough studies that accurately capture the long-term effects of homosexual parenting on children. And, while you can produce a nice anecdote about how a few kids turned out alright with gay/lesbian parents (and I have heard some of them), so can I also produce stories of children who came from lesbian or gay parents who have horrible problems with social adjustment as adults because of their parents amongst many other problems as well. I could also find stories of kids who come from other less-than-ideal situations who turned out fine despite all the odds. Some children are born with resilience. That is a term they use in child development classes. But not all or even most children are resilient - meaning that they will turn out great no matter how terrible their situation. You can't use anecdotal evidence to say you have proven something. You must look at numbers on a broad scale. Any deviation from the gold standard of the nuclear family, has proven in extremely large-scale studies, to be statistically detrimental to children. Since a same-sex couple could never produce a child who is biologically related to both parents, and no same sex couple could ever have a parent of each gender, it is reasonable and rational to assume that same-sex couples will never have as good of outcomes with children as the nuclear family bonded in marriage.
What does that mean? That means that decisions should be made on a legal level, and social pressure should be levied to promote choices that are in the best interest of children. So no. I will not be quiet on this issue - much to your dismay. No. I will not stand up for or support decisions made by people that are not right on a rational, social, moral, or religious level. And no. I will not pass up my responsibility to teach my children what is right on a religious level, or what is best for society on a larger scale.
Same-sex couple are free to live together as they wish, but I do not believe that they deserve the right to marry or to have children, as the institution of marriage has always been rationally center around making and caring for children in fidelity.
P.S. I never called same-sex parents sinners. You put those words in my mouth. I do however believe that there are a myriad of ways that we do all sin and are all therefore sinners, and that we all fall short without the grace of Jesus Christ and repentance for our actions.
How are you able to decide that homosexuals are irrational, socially irresponsible, immoral and non-religious? It seems to me like everything you've based your belief system on hinges on your faith. But what about people who belong to faiths that are accepting of homosexuality and same-sex parenting? Do the people who belong to those faiths not deserve religious freedom as well? Shouldn't same-sex couples be able to marry inside of churches that believe homosexuals deserve the right to marry?
DeleteAs for the institution of marriage always being rationally centered around making and caring for children in fidelity, that's not actually true. Marriage has changed so dramatically since its creation. Polygamy was dominant in Jewish, Christian and Mormon religious traditions and men were not held to standards of fidelity in the past. Since your husband probably didn't pay your father in livestock to marry you and you were given a choice about whether or not to say yes when he proposed, it's pretty obvious that the definition of marriage has changed.
Beyond that, who's to say that same-sex couples don't want to bring up their children within the current social system of marriage? If they're willing to make the commitment to stay with each other exclusively and raise a family cooperatively, wouldn't that only strengthen marriage?
You can poke holes through the APA's stand point on homosexuality all you want, but it does reflect the reality of the body of work on this subject. Nearly all studies done on the subject of same-sex parenting have come back with the same results: it has no harmful effects on the children. Here's an article on one of the most recent studies: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html
You don't have to agree with me or change your mind, but I do hope that you can open your mind enough to treat homosexuals and their children with the dignity and respect that all human beings deserve.
Nicole -
DeleteAgain you are twisting words and ideas out of context.
#1: I said that legalizing marriage between homosexuals is what is irrational. That was not a statement about particular people who are homosexual. Quit trying to turn this into an attack on gays/lesbians from me. It is not. It is a rational statement to say that marriage should only be limited to heterosexual couples. Rather than regurgitate these articles for you, I'm going to link them here for you to read them:
This paper discusses the rational, moral reality of keeping marriage as between one man and one woman: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155
If you don't want to read the above full-length article, this post summarizes the article very well: http://theosophical.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/the-best-argument-i%E2%80%99ve-read-for-traditional-marriage-and-against-same-sex-marriage/
This one reiterates why the argument to protect traditional marriage doesn't fail: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/12/2217/
#2: Regarding religion. None of the world's major religions has ever approved of same-sex relationships (or marriages for that matter). We see some factions breaking off for political reasons these days, but that makes their decisions political (even heretical), but certainly not religious. Here is a helpful quote from this article (http://theosophical.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/the-best-argument-i%E2%80%99ve-read-for-traditional-marriage-and-against-same-sex-marriage/) that discusses that a bit further:
"Although the world’s major religious traditions have historically understood marriage as a union of man and woman that is, by nature, apt for procreation and childrearing, this merely demonstrates that the conjugal view of marriage is so basic to human society and flourishing that every major religion has felt the need to incorporate it into their religious traditions. It is the demands of our common human nature that have shaped (however imperfectly) all religious traditions to recognize this natural institution."
#3: You have yet to give me a link to an actual scientific article. I read through the tertiary source TIME article, and quickly found problems about the study that would put that one in the exact same category as the other studies I discussed in the blog post - they compare the lesbian families (probably predominantly white, well-off and educated) to a large generic group of "heterosexual families" generally - with no indication of marriage, divorce, biological relation to the children, mixed or step families. The comparison group should be married nuclear families. Also, the study only looked at the children for 17 years - why not also into adulthood? The study looked at vague and unimportant social indicators from what I could tell also. For having so many articles that have debunked what I have discussed in this post, it should be easy to find an article to "prove" your point. So please, share one.
#4: I have not treated homosexuals or their children without dignity and respect for holding to a view of marriage that is rational. Tolerance does not mean that all ideas need to be viewed as equally important or acceptable, but that we discuss them civilly with those we disagree with. http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5359 Think about that. You'll find no disrespect or hatred of homosexuals or their children from me, in my past, present or future. I have no idea where you come up with some of these things, Nicole.
What's rational about refusing to let two loving people marry to promise their commitment to one another and then raise children within the wedlock that you find so appealing? The rational decision is to let the people raising children do so within a marriage so that they have the legal standing necessary to make raising their children fit into our social structure.
DeleteAs for offering up studies, most (if not all) credible studies can only be found in academic journals that aren't available online without paying for their access. Newspaper articles are the best that I can show to you without giving you expensive access to the original transcripts of all of those journals.
You keep bringing up the bias in these studies. Let's talk about that. Same-sex couples have only been able to have children for a relatively short amount of time in this country. There are very, very few people who were raised by same-sex parents over the age of 25. Adoption, surrogacy, artificial insemination, etc. are all expensive processes which leads to a community of same-sex couples who can only have children if they are middle-class or higher. A disproportionate amount of middle-class people are white and well educated. The bias isn't only looking into "desirable" families -- it's looking into the only type of same-sex families that exist right now. Should all of the other potential families be mistreated because the processes are too expensive right now? Should the families who have children right now face this kind of discrimination because they are the only ones that exist? Absolutely not. These parents should be able to head their own families and make decisions for them. You shouldn't have any ability to dictate how they can live their lives. It disgusts me that in our current social system, you and your church have more power over same-sex parents who want to get married than they do.
And finally, denying anyone of the basic rights that the vast majority of members of society and joy is hatred. You can continue to argue that you're being as kind as you'd like, but the reality is that you are personally disenfranchising every single person who identifies as homosexual and strives for equal rights under the law. The issue isn't you disagreeing. The issue is you actively putting your harmful ideas into a place where they can be spread, leading to further discrimination. That's what you're advocating: discrimination. There is absolutely no other way to put it.
But there are people who can phrase that argument better than I can. Take a look at this: http://evolequals.com/2012/10/23/a-gay-dad-sounds-off-on-the-ten-biggest-indecencies-thrust-on-gay-people/
Yes, Nicole. I am advocating discrimination! In the cases of marriage and adoption, there should be discrimination and preferential treatment to the couples who meet the rational definition of marriage. Read my comment to Jane above to get a better understanding of why I believe that discrimination is appropriate in that case. Oh, and while you're at it - read the links to the articles I shared with you. I read yours, and found them unworthy of response. Discrimination does not necessarily equal hatred. We discriminate all the time when there are rational reasons for doing so. Like I suggested to anonymous below, I suggest you read this article on tolerance: http://www.str.org/site/News2?id=5359
DeleteSo, I stumbled across this article on a whim and thought I should write a few sentences. After reading through the lengthy responses and heated discussions, I see a few problems with the original statement and the support behind the statement.
ReplyDeleteFirst off I would like to say that regardless of personal views on the nuclear family or whatnot, to force an opinion onto others with such unrelenting stubbornness is absurd. So to support anyone who go out of there way to revoke the rights of marriage to homosexual couples and to revoke adoption/parental rights to homosexual couples, before addressing much more critical issues in our society today is revolting.
Furthermore, I would love to hear what you value about the nuclear family, because I would venture to guess that those things you value are the same things that same sex couples value about family.
On top of that there is a lot of talk about gays making all of this political and people who support them (namely religious groups) are just feeding into supporting a liberal agenda, I think that this statement is incredibly ignorant. If you walked into a christian institution with gay ministers and church officials you would find a warm loving place, looking to care for people and live in Christ's image. To say that acceptance is anything more than what it is, is an awful thing to say, let along write on a public blog.
To build on that, the only reason you started writing all of this hate speech was to further your own political agenda. It was created in response to a response on a blog regarding politics. To me this issue is not a political one, but of a social one. There is indeed a change in society regarding this issue and more and more you are becoming isolated in your beliefs. I respect your quest for knowledge, but I see nothing here that shows a genuine concern for the people you are writing about. The only reason I am responding instead of just ignoring it, is that this line of thinking is the same line of thinking that put African Americans into slavery and the Jews into internment camps. We MUST respect each other as humans and surround ourselves with love and joy. That is all! :D
First off, I would like to say that your posting this comment anonymously required so much courage on your part! Way to go!
DeleteSecondly, the right of homosexuals to marry has been denied in many states, and they have been "revoked" in none. Same with adoption. I made the statement that I believe that stable homes with both a mother and father who are married should be seen as the ideal family situation that they are, and therefore should be given priority wherever possible. Also, no religious group should ever be forced to perform the marriage of same sex couples. Adoption agencies run by religious groups should be allowed to prefer (or deny) families the right to adopt children under their stewardship, based on religion, marriage, and sexuality when placing children for adoption. Don't put words in my mouth about revoking parental rights. Don't just make stuff up. That is seriously annoying, and totally disruptive to a real dialogue on this subject.
Thirdly, I can tell by your response that you did not read through any of the links to the articles that I posted. You cannot think of a single way that a same sex couple could be fundamentally different than a heterosexual couple? Like, the fact that there could only ever be one gender represented in the couple? Or that the couple could never have both parents be biologically related to the child? Or that this could cause children extreme social difficulty or gender confusion being raised in a home like this? Where is your genuine concern for children and what is best for them? They are not just playthings to be experimented with. I have yet to see any intellectually sound rebuttal to the concerns I (and the articles I posted) raised about the effects of same sex couples raising children.
Fourthly, do you really not see the hypocrisy of your forcing with "unrelenting stubbornness" an opinion on others? My idea of marriage is not just some opinion I came up with out of nowhere. The ability to create children biologically in principle, the commitment to the social contract, the presence of the option for natural sex, as well as the representation of both genders are all hallmarks of marriage, and have been since the very beginning.
Fifthly, this is not hate speech. But, it is hateful on your part to suggest that my line of thought - is anywhere near racism or genocide. Again - read the articles, look at the evidence of what has been studied on this issue. There are good, thoughtful, and important reasons why I am defending the points that I am in this article. I don't believe I am that isolated in my beliefs on this issue, but I do believe that too many have been silenced by fear of creepy haters who scream, "Bigot!" every time they hear an opposing rational and/or moral/religious argument on this issue.
Sixthly, yes we should respect each other as humans, and we should surround ourselves with love and joy. And we do that by leaving hateful anonymous comments on blog posts, without addressing any of the moral/social/logical reasoning of the post presented? Read this article on tolerance, and think about what the word really means: http://www.str.org/site/News2?id=5359 I do not have to agree with the opinions or lifestyles of others to be kind, loving, and tolerant to them - especially when I have rational, moral reasons for opposing their lifestyles and opinions - which have yet to be refuted.
Sorry, I can tell that you are pretty urked, but you did not address one of the fundamental points of my post. I would like you to list out plainly your values of the nuclear family. I actually spent a good portion of my day reading through the articles that you posted and if you read, applauded you for your research and thought about this issue. I never said that a religious group should be forced to do anything more than not limit the rights of others. I think what you are missing here is the VERY political part of this which is the fact that marriage is not just a religious thing but a social and financial thing. Is it to much to ask that in the states eyes we should all have the same rights.
DeleteI'd also like to understand another point you made in the article. I'm not sure what you mean by the social implications a child will have to deal with being raised by a same sex couple, meaning that the child will be outcasted in his society.
Also, what do you mean by one gender represented and gender confusion? I'm just unclear with what you are getting at there.
My genuine concern for children is to be raised in loving stable homes, which same sex couples have just as much as any heterosexual couple does. So again I ask what is the difference?
I also am curious to understand what you mean by the social contract? More and more states are legalizing gay marriage, to me this shows a movement that will accept this in the united states in our life time. The laws that we write and the community values is our social contract.
I wouldn't mind if you clarified your position a little more. Just curious. Sorry if I offended you, but I think that articles like this are exactly the reason why there is a civil rights movement happening today.