That is the question researchers explored in the first study ever to track children raised by lesbian parents, from birth to adolescence.I'm not sure what the wording of this means. Does this mean the kids were raised from birth to adolescence by lesbians, or that they were only tracked through adolescence? From the rest of the article, it appears to mean both. I suppose I should know from the comma.
Although previous studies have indicated that children with same-sex parents show no significant differences compared with children in heterosexual homes when it comes to social development and adjustment, many of those investigations involved children who were born to women in heterosexual marriages, who later divorced and came out as lesbians.One important detail is what exactly is meant by social development and adjustment, and how that is determined.
For their new study, published on Monday in the journal Pediatrics, researchers Nanette Gartrell, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California at San Francisco (and a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles), and Henry Bos, a behavioral scientist at the University of Amsterdam, focused on what they call planned lesbian families - households in which the mothers identified themselves as lesbian at the time of artificial insemination.So it appears none of these children were "surprises" or conceived via rape, or otherwise "crisis pregnancies". This is very important. Perhaps the real message is that waiting to have children until you believe you are ready to be a parent makes things better for the child? A child born to a partnered lesbian impregnated through third party reproduction is going to have two women who consider that child their child, unlike how it often can be when a man has been cuckolded and is bitter or comes into a situation where a woman is raising a child from a past lover.
[Much more after the jump.]
The authors found that children raised by lesbian mothers - whether the mother was partnered or single - scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior.There are so many factors consider for both the homosexual and heterosexual parents – divorce, strife in the relationships, individual flaws, etc.
These findings were expected, the authors said; however, they were surprised to discover that children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.Self-esteem and confidence aren't necessarily good things – especially when they are unwarranted. Rule-breaking can be a good thing when the rule is unjust. Aggression is not necessarily a bad thing. For example, if a bully is about to beat up a smaller child, perhaps citing that smaller child’s mother being a lesbian, then aggressive intervention on the part of a witness can be a good thing even if the school has a rule against intervening.
In addition, children in same-sex-parent families whose mothers ended up separating did as well as children in lesbian families in which the moms stayed together.Does anyone really believe this? It means that same-sex divorce has no effect on children. Really, rather than getting this study widely publicized, if I had come up with these results, I would realize that the study is flawed. But due to politics, and the funding already spent by homosexuality advocates on the study, the study gets wide publicity.
The data that Gartrell and Bos analyzed came from the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS), begun in 1986. The authors included 154 women in 84 families who underwent artificial insemination to start a family; the parents agreed to answer questions about their children's social skills, academic performance and behavior at five follow-up times over the 17-year study period. Children in the families were interviewed by researchers at age 10 and were then asked at age 17 to complete an online questionnaire, which included queries about the teens' activities, social lives, feelings of anxiety or depression, and behavior.
Where to start?
1. That's an extremely small sample.
2. What about when these kids get older, especially when they consider starting their own family?
3. Are the misandry levels in these children higher than the general population?
4. Is it possible that the researchers doing the interviews were biased?
5. Is it possible that the self-reporting could have been defensive?
Not surprisingly, the researchers found that 41% of children reported having endured some teasing, ostracism or discrimination related to their being raised by same-sex parents.Unfortunately, some children bully other children for anything they perceive as different. Bullying for whatever reasons is not good, even more so when it is something over which the child has no control.
But Gartrell and Bos could find no differences on psychological adjustment tests between the children and those in a group of matched controls.
This could mean that everyone is getting bullied at pretty much the same rate, regardless of the sexual identity of parents.
I do think is entirely possible that a child raised by two stable women (or one woman) would be better off than one raised by a woman who has a series of bad boys parading through her bedroom and past the breakfast table, possibly taking a detour through the child's room between. But what about situations where a mother and grandmother are raising the children, or a mother and aunt?
Apples need to be compared to apples. Of course a child is likely to be better off raised by a generally good, financially stable woman who planned the pregnancy over an abusive mother and abusive father who are in and out of police custody and spend their money on their substance abuse habits rather than food for the kid. But what about all other things being equal?
The study does not past the smell test. Homosexual people KNOW there is a difference between men and women in interpersonal relationships - that is why they indentify as homosexual and not neutrally bisexual. Parenting is an interpersonal relationship. Therefore, there has to be a difference between mothering and fathering. All children, gay or straight, will grow up to deal with both men and women. As such, they benefit from having a parent of each sex parenting them and modeling cooperative interaction between the sexes.
Use common sense. Does the fact that a woman is attracted to a woman matter? What matters is the behavior towards and in front of the children. Of course a lesbian can be a good mother. What she can't be, though, nor can another woman, is a father.
Because the research is ongoing, Gartrell hopes to test some of these theories with additional studies. She is also hoping to collect more data on gay-father households; gay fatherhood is less common than lesbian motherhood because of the high costs of surrogacy or adoption that gay couples face in order to start a family.
But I thought they were just like bride+groom couples? If they are, some of those couples should be able to make babies without third parties.
Would the same publication publish a study that was funded and released by Focus on the Family in which evangelical Christian parents raised children according to the principles of Focus on the Family, and the study said that such children are better off?
2 great mothers cannot replace 1 good father.
ReplyDeleteRosie O'Donnell January 20, 2010
ReplyDelete""When Parker was [younger], he used to say, 'I wish I had a dad,'" Rosie recounted. "I'd be like, 'Yeah, that'd be really good if we did, but if you had a dad you wouldn't have me as a mommy, 'cause I'm the kind of mommy that wants another mommy. I'm not the kind of mommy who wants a daddy. So then you would have a different mommy.' And he said, 'Hmm, alright then. I'll just keep you.' I was like, 'Phew! Close one.'""
She could of just said, that his mother and father could not raise him at the time of his birth and she stepped in. She really didn't have to make the situation be based on her orientation, even though Parker was probably implying why don't you (Rosie) find a man to be my dad. Sigh... She didn't have to guilt him into feeling bad, that if he wanted a father then he would be rejecting her (more importantly her orientation).
Big problem here:
ReplyDeleteIn addition, children in same-sex-parent families whose mothers ended up separating did as well as children in lesbian families in which the moms stayed together.
Now, there are now plenty of studies which have shown that children without fathers, or whose parents divorce, do worse than those whose parents stay together. To which the SSM advocates contend that what those studies were really showing was not the importance of a parent of each gender, but merely the importance of two parents, of whatever gender.
But this study claims that it doesn't matter whether there is one (female) parent, or two.
So now, if this study is accurate, just what accounts for the findings of those other studies that claimed that the absence of the father, or, for that matter, of one parent, had a negative effect on the kids?
Were those studies inaccurate or flawed? Or is this study inaccurate or flawed? Or is some other factor involved?
Good questions, RK. Also, it just hit me that if the kids do as well whether or not the lesbian mother is partnered, then they certainly aren't suffering as a result of their mother not having a state marriage license, are they? There goes that argument for the need to neuter marriage - that it will help the children of lesbians.
ReplyDeleteWhat a can of worms.
Seriously, though, if it could be demonstrated that children are better off being raised by a lesbian, then shouldn't sociologists encourage that and discourage straight women from taking on motherhood?
To back up Yours Sincerely's statement....
ReplyDeleteVia Family Scholars
Lesbian Parenting and the Problem With Public Information
"Gartrell's study was limited to lesbian couples. On theoretical grounds, one could take her result as evidence not that homosexuals are good at child rearing but that women are, in which case it would imply the precise opposite of what she suggests. Insofar as the quote is evidence of anything, it is evidence of bias on the part of the researcher. As anyone familiar with statistical work knows, there are a lot of ways in which a researcher can tweak the design of a study, deliberately or not, to produce the result the researcher wants"
Conclusion... Women make good moms, since all are from sperm donation at least one of the women in the same-sex relationship is the biological mother.
Isn't saying women make good moms a bit sexist?
I'm pretty sure the higher success comes from having two parents who aren't repressed Christians...
ReplyDeleteGinx,
ReplyDeleteThis blog is about marriage and specifically biological kinship and human sexuality in it's natural reproductive state. There is nothing repressive about that, the only things that's holding anyone back is your ignorant and bigoted views against a religious group.
OK then...
As I move on to the topic of marriage, family, and child raising.
In many cultures multiple women (some may not even be related) may help up with child rearing, while men collectively may gather resources away. In these cultures gender roles of severely segregated also. When a woman had a husband, she also gets all of his family also in a supportive role as mother. There is not only her mother and female relatives but also the husband's.
When step into an ideal that only supports the female attachment to the children then we only have one line of help for the mother. The child doesn't even have a maternal grandfather, yet only a mother and grandmother and any older female siblings or female cousins if the mother has a sister or two. Men have always created a second layer of protection. The man can still be committed to the woman and his children even if he days out on end hunting. Even if he catches nothing, he knows another male relative will share if successful.
The nuclear family is that, a nucleus, a unit. A starting point for the individual. Once the maternity and paternity is established extends outward with outward connecting to other family and kin. Others that may not be related who may become kin or kin-in-law, because no one wants to marry their cousin or half brother.
Hey Ginx, I find it amusing that you want to leak out your hatred by casting such a stereo-type.
ReplyDeleteFind the healing, friend... Hatred is poison for the soul. The very kind of poison that influences people to poison marriage, I'm afraid.
I thought in the future this may be a topic of concern with children being raised by non-biological parents.
ReplyDeleteAdoption as a Risk Factor for Attempted Suicide During Adolescence from 2001 from the medical journal Pediatrics
While the great majority of children of adoptive youth do not attempt suicide, even in the two parent female/male home... something is lost by the child. While adoption may be necessary for a child, the acknowledgment lost/abandonment is there. Children of lesbian couples I think may have the same experience, because clearly one day they will know there is a sperm donor, and the idea that one's father was paid not to be apart of you life reasonably is something that child has to grasp. As Yours sincerely says, two mothers don't replace a father.
Hey, Walrus,
ReplyDeleteYou make a great point when you say, “Perhaps the real message is that waiting to have children until you believe you are ready to be a parent makes things better for the child.”
In fact, in his book, “Freakonomics,” University of Chicago (you know, the bastion of conservative economic theology) economist Steven Levitt reports on using “regression analysis” to determine the effects of various variables in parenting. He found a strong correlation between school test scores and highly educated parents with high socioeconomic status, who are involved in the child’s PTA, when the mother was 30 years or older at the time of her first child’s birth. He found no correlation between test scores and whether or not the child’s family is intact (or, for that matter, whether or not the mother worked between birth & kindergarten, or spanked the kid, or let her watch television, or read to him nearly every day).
Notice that these findings are completely consistent with the lesbian mom report data – and that they imply that the reason for the success of lesbian moms' children has nothing to do with the mom’s sexual orientation, but is related to the fact lesbian moms are uniquely situated to provide their children with the factors that do make a difference (including the fact that using artificial insemination pretty much guarantees the child is wanted).
Of course, it also strikes a hard, objective blow to the claim that preventing gays and lesbians from joining the institution of marriage is “for the children.” We all, lesbians included, interact with members of the other primary sex on a regular basis, so (hopefully) “modeling cooperative interaction [among] the sexes.” This modeling extends far beyond the household; indeed, the modeling inside the heterosexual nuclear family is frequently negative. The additional models of extended family, friendships, and so on are beneficial – in the case of both myself and my coparent, more than our parents’ relationships.
But given that intact families are not correlated with a child’s success, why the strong correlation with worse outcomes for those families? I would argue that the well-established data showing that single mothers tend to be young, poorly educated, and suffer poverty is completely in keeping with the data Levitt cites.
In other words, if our concern is “the children,” we should drop marriage from the equation, and provide strong incentives to women to delay childbirth and become educated – by something like providing comprehensive sex-ed in schools, providing assistance for women to attend post-secondary educational institutions (including remedial education & tutoring), and perhaps providing a year’s income to mothers who delay birthing their first child until age thirty.
Of course, Ted Olson pretty much massacred that "for the children" idea in the Prop 8 trial – which is, I suspect, the real reason that Prop 8 proponents fought so hard to keep the trial out of the public eye.
Seda: He found a strong correlation between school test scores and highly educated parents with high socioeconomic status, who are involved in the child’s PTA, when the mother was 30 years or older at the time of her first child’s birth. He found no correlation between test scores and whether or not the child’s family is intact (or, for that matter, whether or not the mother worked between birth & kindergarten, or spanked the kid, or let her watch television, or read to him nearly every day).
ReplyDeleteAnd that's very likely true, but I would argue that the overall measure of children's sociological and psychological health cannot be measured just by school test scores. Hence, Levitt's findings hardly strike a "hard, objective blow to the claim that preventing gays and lesbians from joining the institution of marriage is 'for the children.'"
Add to that a couple of factors which affect all of these studies.
One is that the authors, for good reason, cannot test children without permission of their parents or guardians. This raises the question of whether or not those who agree to let their children participate have significant differences from those who refuse.
Secondly, it is likely that no matter what they are told the purpose of the study may be by the authors, same-sex parents are likely to always suspect that the real purpose is to measure their children for the effects of same-sex parenting itself. They are thus on guard for this possibility, and want to be sure their children do not negatively affect the study. By that I mean anything from the sublime to the outright.
Thirdly, in any study, when one group feels that they have a high personal stake in the outcome (and thus potentially a lot to lose) while the control group does not, this in itself becomes a factor which can render the study meaningless. The fact that the study reported on by Park tracked lesbian couples from birth to adolescence makes this particularly significant here. Even if the control parents were also tracked long-term (were they?), if they did not have the same sense that they as parents had a lot to lose if their group came out worse, that alone is enough to make the study unreliable for any predictive results as to how children in the future will fare under same-sex parenting (once it is accepted and no longer has to prove itself).
Seda: But given that intact families are not correlated with a child’s success, why the strong correlation with worse outcomes for those families? I would argue that the well-established data showing that single mothers tend to be young, poorly educated, and suffer poverty is completely in keeping with the data Levitt cites.
ReplyDeleteMany, if not most, of the studies which have found negative effects from single parenting have controlled for economic factors.
Of course, Ted Olson pretty much massacred that "for the children" idea in the Prop 8 trial – which is, I suspect, the real reason that Prop 8 proponents fought so hard to keep the trial out of the public eye.
Then why has the "schools argument" worked as well as it has? Olson's argument can be summarized as a totally fallacy: that if we have not yet scientifically proven negative effects for an experiment which has just begun (the redefinition of marriage, not just same-sex childrearing), therefore we can assume that there will not be negative effects, and thus that any concern about negative effects must be just a mask for "bigotry". Still, his argument will probably be enough for Judge Walker, who has not demonstrated a lot of intellectual imagination in his choice of questions. (Though I've also been unimpressed by the intellectual imagination of Pugno and Cooper who are supposed to be defending Prop 8).
Walker did ask one interesting question, whether or not the belief that it will have negative effects is enough to justify the public's right to vote down same-sex marriage (or, for that matter, any other sociological experiment) when the results realistically can not be expected to be known for some time yet. I'll be interested to see just how he justifies answering that in the negative, without ominous implications for our democratic principles.
I ask again, if we mandate same-sex marriage on the nation by judicial fiat, and it does prove to be a disaster a generation down the line, what are the lessons we will have learned?
Hey, R.K.
ReplyDeletethe overall measure of children's sociological and psychological health cannot be measured just by school test scores
You are absolutely right. However, in order to be objective, there must be measurable data. While limited, school test scores are measurable – as are crime rates, poverty rates, etc. If there’s a way to measure “overall sociological and psychological health,” I don’t know what it is. So, your objections, whether or not they affect the various studies, are speculative and subjective.
I recognize your conviction of truth. I see your need to protect children and promote their welfare, and that you are doing it according to your best understanding of integrity and truth. I have the same needs, and seek to protect children by my own understanding. But yours and mine are both subjective.
No one’s proposing that we mandate same-sex marriage – or marriage of any kind, for that matter. However, if it proves to be a disaster a generation down the line, we’ll have to ask the right questions, isolate for the right variables, and analyze the right data to know what lessons are learned. Otherwise, the lessons each person brings from it will be born from their subjective assumptions and beliefs, and will vary accordingly – and each side will continue to invest resources into promoting their particular agenda, instead of working together to create a better society for all.
As it is now.
Seda: If there’s a way to measure “overall sociological and psychological health,” I don’t know what it is. So, your objections, whether or not they affect the various studies, are speculative and subjective.
ReplyDeleteMaybe, but they are enough to state that the studies cannot be said to prove their claim until questions like the ones I've raised have been answered.
No one’s proposing that we mandate same-sex marriage – or marriage of any kind, for that matter.
You didn't think I was stating that same-sex marriage (or any marriage) was going to be mandated for each individual, did you? Of course, I was talking about mandating that same-sex marriages be legally recognized---or more precisely that they be held legally indistinguishable from opposite-sex marriages.
And it is certainly not the case that no one is proposing that.
However, if it proves to be a disaster a generation down the line, we’ll have to ask the right questions, isolate for the right variables, and analyze the right data to know what lessons are learned. Otherwise, the lessons each person brings from it will be born from their subjective assumptions and beliefs, and will vary accordingly – and each side will continue to invest resources into promoting their particular agenda, instead of working together to create a better society for all.
But what will it have taught us about the now prevalent idea that a cultural change, which has no long-term precedent in history by which we can judge its effects, must be assumed to be harmless unless proven harmful by the kind of rigorous scientific scrutiny you mention? That's the more generic lesson I'm getting at.
More on this erroneous statement:
ReplyDeleteOf course, Ted Olson pretty much massacred that "for the children" idea in the Prop 8 trial – which is, I suspect, the real reason that Prop 8 proponents fought so hard to keep the trial out of the public eye.
If the aftermath of Prop 8 and the treatment of Carrie Prejean weren't enough to show what the reasons were, what else would it take?
But actually, the reason that many opponents of SSM are as unwilling as they are to be publicly identified itself goes against the argument that they are only motivated by "bigotry" or "animus".
For I have found that very many people I talk to that oppose SSM have gay friends or relatives that they care about. Their opposition to SSM is about their concern for the institution of marriage, not about animosity toward gays. Still, they know that their position could cause real rifts between them and their friends or relatives. But this concern does not alleviate their concern about the effect of androgynizing the institution. They are thus put in a bind---do they risk sacrificing their relationships with friends or even family for the future of the institution of marriage, or do they risk the future of the institution for the sake of maintaining the good relations? They feel they have to choose the former over the latter, but would rather not risk either.
And it is these people who are the most reluctant to be publicly identified. Out-and-out gay haters don't care as much if their names are given; they often say they will be proud to give their names, as they don't want gay friends anyway.
Many of the Prop 8 witnesses (such as David Blankenhorn) were clearly not motivated by anti-gay bias but by concern about the institution of marriage. Many of those who decided not to testify were also so motivated.
Yes, these people were the ones most uncomfortable with being publicly shown on camera, or having their names plastered over the Internet. It isn't easy to tell people, "Look, I like you, and care about you, and you are a good person, but I believe the change you want will hurt all of us more than it benefits you." It's not easy to tell people that, but the fact that it's not easy to say does not make it less likely to be true.
But many on the pro-SSM side want to take advantage of the dilemma that many opponents are in and force them to choose between their principles and their relationships.
Now, I believe that people should not change their vote or their position on anything merely on the basis of "what would my friends think". And a true friend should not expect or ask them to. But in the real world, it's not so easy to avoid the dilemma. Still, trying to aggravate it by using the threat of publicity is a cheap and manipulative way of trying to distort the democratic process.
I should clarify that Levitt was not referring to any study of gay parents, nor was he studying that or analyzing it. He was referring to data collected from the Chicago Public School system, and from the US Dept. of Ed. Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, both of which included huge samples and extensive data. As noted in the “lesbian mom” study, the sample was very small, and therefore not very reliable.
ReplyDeleteFurther, Levitt is an economist – not a sociologist, psychologist, or ideologue. He doesn’t appear to have any stake in the marriage equality/gay marriage debate; he doesn’t make moral judgments, he just isolates variables and analyzes data to determine cause and effect.
What I find interesting about Levitt’s analysis is that it is completely consistent with what you would expect to find if the “lesbian mom” study were studying straight women with the same age, socioeconomic status, education, and commitment profile. In other words, Levitt’s work supports the evidence that there are no measureable harms from having lesbian moms, at least through adolescence.
(Disclaimer: I’ve modified my views due to a number of factors and informational inputs, and, at this point, am agnostic on gay marriage; I tend to think at this point that the state should get out of the marriage business altogether. And I reserve the right to re-think and change my view as new information directs.)
The harms that anti-SSM activists warn us against appear to be supported by no more than tradition, religious dogma, and conventional wisdom, and not by hard data, from what I’ve seen – and that includes what I’ve read about the Prop 8 trial, which does not include the transcripts of it. In contrast, the harms to LGBT people and families from discrimination are specific and measurable. That doesn’t necessarily mean those harms you warn us of aren’t real; but how can you determine policy without measures to base it on? The possibility that there might be bad effects a generation or two down the line, and therefore we shouldn’t even experiment, seems a stretch to me.
As for the folks testifying about Prop 8, their names are splashed all over the internet, and the news, anyway. Most – perhaps all – are quite vocal and public about their opposition to gay marriage. So the “visibility” argument doesn’t wash with me. Being uncomfortable with trying to defend those views under the pressure of cross-examination, on the other hand, does. To me, it’s very telling that folks who oppose Prop 8 are eager to testify under cross-examination, while those in favor of it are, at best, reluctant. Further, I have plenty of friends with whom I disagree about one issue or another (including my brother). It seems to me that genuine friendships are not endangered by varying views so much as they are by hiding one’s real opinions and feelings. To quote an Arabic proverb, “A friend is one to whom one may pour out all the content of one’s heart, chaff and grain together, knowing that the gentlest of hands will take and sift it, keep what is worth keeping and with a breath of kindness blow the rest away.” I have friends who are Marxist and friends who are libertarian, and who oppose ENDA and/or gay marriage; I would be more offended by them hiding those views, than expressing them, or defending them in the public arena. If someone is trying to force another to choose between their principles and their relationship, the relationship is already in jeopardy.
Have a wonderful day!
Seda, again, to quote you regarding Levitt:
ReplyDeleteHe found a strong correlation between school test scores and highly educated parents with high socioeconomic status, who are involved in the child’s PTA, when the mother was 30 years or older at the time of her first child’s birth. I have no trouble believing that there is a correlation between test scores and those things. But then as you say:
He found no correlation between test scores and whether or not the child’s family is intact (or, for that matter, whether or not the mother worked between birth & kindergarten, or spanked the kid, or let her watch television, or read to him nearly every day).
To which you also add, In other words, Levitt’s work supports the evidence that there are no measureable harms from having lesbian moms, at least through adolescence.
Then one could also argue, just from Levitt's work, that it supports the idea that there are no measurable harms from spanking (even in excess?) or excess TV viewing either.
See, the problem is that many effects are not so easily measurable---but that does not mean they cannot be just as great. It's harder to measure the effects of abuse or excess TV on children. Exactly what measurable data are you going to look for? Not that many studies have not tried to do this, and some have found results to indicate harm, but because this harm is not measured by easily quantifiable data like test scores (and because the harm one is looking to measure is often hard to determine) it takes much longer to conclusively prove scientifically in the only way you believe should be regarded as conclusive by policy makers.
What I find interesting about Levitt’s analysis is that it is completely consistent with what you would expect to find if the “lesbian mom” study were studying straight women with the same age, socioeconomic status, education, and commitment profile.
Well, that's a question I'd like to know about that study: were they doing so? If so, that would bolster their conclusion, if not, it would weaken it.
I do not believe the harm done by changing the public image of marriage to being merely "between two persons" regardless of gender will be easy to quantitatively measure, but that does not mean it may not be severe.
Seda: The harms that anti-SSM activists warn us against appear to be supported by no more than tradition, religious dogma, and conventional wisdom...
ReplyDeleteWithout explanations as to why these traditions, dogmas, and conventional wisdoms exist, and why they are so universal, merely dismissing them out of hand amounts to removing a fence without knowing why it was there in the first place.
The possibility that there might be bad effects a generation or two down the line, and therefore we shouldn’t even experiment, seems a stretch to me.
But if you acknowledge that it is indeed an experiment, should a state be forced into that experiment (by judicial fiat), and should the public thus be told they can have no say in it? Let alone that by mandating it judicially we are in effect tying our hands from undoing it should the harm come to pass.
So the “visibility” argument doesn’t wash with me. Being uncomfortable with trying to defend those views under the pressure of cross-examination, on the other hand, does.
Let me put it differently. Being uncomfortable with unrelenting high-pressure sales methods (of the kind you get from door-to-door salespersons, or from SSM advocates going door-to-door to try to convert communities) does.
I have friends who are Marxist and friends who are libertarian, and who oppose ENDA and/or gay marriage; I would be more offended by them hiding those views, than expressing them, or defending them in the public arena.
Well, I commend you for that, but do all of your friends know that your friendship will not turn on how they feel about an issue? As much as I commend you for feeling as you do, Seda, not everybody is the same way, and I have seen or known of friendships being broken because of political disagreements.
If someone is trying to force another to choose between their principles and their relationship, the relationship is already in jeopardy.
Agreed. I think we're talking about mild as well as strong friendships here, or at least we should be. But because everybody unfortunately does not feel as we do, merely stating the ideal does not take care of the problem in the real world.
Then one could also argue, just from Levitt's work, that it supports the idea that there are no measurable harms from spanking (even in excess?) or excess TV viewing either.
ReplyDeleteKinda disturbing, isn't it?
However, excess spanking is abuse, which has measurable effects. And, as you say, there are effects which are less measurable; there are also measurable effects in different aspects, such as violent crimes. Are you saying, then, that having lesbian mothers damages kids, but only in ways that are invisible? How can you support that?
At any rate, given that the harms caused to gays and lesbians from discrimination (including access to marriage) are quantifiable, it would seem to me that the burden of proof to show that allowing gay marriage causes greater harms to society is on those who oppose gay marriage.
But I'm not going to argue here for or against gay marriage. I'm just pointing out one additional piece of evidence that supports the conclusion of the lesbian mom study. But since you were speculating, I'll leave you with this:
What if children really don't suffer any harm from being raised by gay and lesbian parents (as the data appears to show)?
As you say, no long-term studies have proven that SSM doesn't harm society - but neither have they proven it does. What if, a generation down the line, allowing gay marriage is shown to have benefited society?
Seda, sorry for not getting back to you yet; I have a lot to say in response to your above post, but due to time constraints I will have to wait till the weekend. Short answer to your last two questions, yes, at some point (how long is hard to say and varies) if there's no harm from a radical new idea we can all say so, but that would teach us no lessons about how to approach radical new ideas per se. Will elaborate on that.
ReplyDeleteWhat if children really don't suffer any harm from being raised by gay and lesbian parents?....What if, a generation down the line, allowing gay marriage is shown to have benefited society?
ReplyDeleteThen I will admit that the harms I feared have not come to pass. But if your question is whether I will have been wrong to have been skeptical about it, and to have not wanted it to be passed in a bandwagon, domino-like approach before we really knew the effects, my answer would be, No, I was not.
I will demonstrate by analogy. Let us take a new drug which is hoped may be highly beneficial in treating an illness, particularly an illness which, while often causing suffering, is not usually fatal. This drug has not been fully tested to determine whether or not it may have side effects which are worse than the disease, or even if it really cures or allays the suffering of the disease at all. Still, the people suffering from the disease say they cannot wait for relief, and so they demand that it be approved without waiting for the full tests that the FDA requires. Many oppose approving the drug until its safety is fully known.
Well, let us say, due to the demands, the drug is approved, and the FDA process is skirted so that full testing is not accomplished first. Then, after a number of years, the drug is found to have been beneficial, and to have had no harmful effects.
Would this prove that it was wrong to oppose skirting the FDA and approving the drug prematurely? Would this prove that it is thus right to approve drugs without full testing? (Think, for example, of a certain drug that was approved in Europe but not in the U.S., in the early 1960s).
And, just so you understand, the analog with the "disease" is the difficulties gay people suffer in society, NOT being gay in and of itself. I'm not saying you're one of them, Seda, but I am frequently frustrated by the inability of so many on the pro-SSM side to understand analogy, or to misinterpret what's being analogized, or to confuse analogy with moral comparison.
Seda I found some a research study that has nothing to do with gay marriage, but rather population decline or should I say more importantly young population decline. The towns in Massachusetts which are the most gay friendly had the most decline. Now being gay friendly shouldn't cause this and I have no reason to assume.
ReplyDeleteIt has to be something else in how heterosexuals see their OWN fertility and raising children.
Postpone of marriage and childbearing to the point of infertility is the heterosexual norm. I'm the minority with four children in her 20s/early 30s. I was just chatting with my family hairstylist, that if it wasn't for her 'surprise' in her mid 20s and waited her doctor now says she would of never of had children. IVF is so common, and if it wasn't for IVF even more people would be childless.
I usually don't go out to typical family attractions with my children (remember my rant about strawberry picking on Facebook), because the price point for these establishments are for more affluent families with one or two kids.
Massachusetts suburbs as I may assume like other suburbs are seemingly just as sexually repressive of the pleasantville of the 50s. Don't want to 'over crowd the school' and we got to 'keep property values up'. Some of the most liberal/progressive towns have very few poor or minorities.
While we have many young adults move to Massachusetts temporarily, they don't stay and those have children have fewer and fewer... population ages and over time decade by decade there are fewer workers/business for revenue. Again nothing to do with gay marriage, but if we have a public policy that encourages heterosexuals to postpone marriage/childbearing. Gay marriage makes sense, not as much as it does with what one thinks of homosexuality but rather, it being normal for heterosexuals to be childless and adopt a dog instead.
In my ideal world I would like the Samoa view of homosexuality. If I just had a gay sibling to help out, I could definitely have more then four kids.
R.K.,
ReplyDeleteThen by your own argument, you would be in favor of having legal recognition of SSM in at least some states or districts? Because a total, blanket opposition to SSM in any and all states would be equivalent to disallowing the FDA from even testing the new drug at all, in your analogy.
Sort of a moot point now, isn't it, ax?
ReplyDeleteOver the past fifteen to twenty years I don't think I've ever been under the illusion that it would not happen somewhere.
And because there's such a movement for it, realistically I know the only way this is going to be settled is by experiment---problem is, proponents don't want it to be considered an experiment, they want it to spread all over before the experimental stage is anywhere near complete.
If I thought I had any influence whatever on the Netherlands before 2000, and if it could have been agreed upon that it would be considered an encapsulated experiment, and if the legislature and public approved it, sure, I'd have said then, go ahead Dutch, and wouldn't have resisted if a couple more countries wanted to join the experiment---with the support of their citizens, that is.
Same applies to the states. If the legislature and public of any state wanted to experiment with it, fine. But----under the hypothetical that I would have any power to ask this---I'd ask that it be considered an encapsulated experiment until generational effect is known, which takes, well, at least a generation.
Now, if there do turn out to be bad effects, this is admittedly not fair to those first places that try it, but knowing through experiment is likely the only way this will be settled.
But if too many places jump on the bandwagon too soon, and it does turn out bad, that will be far worse.
But since you were speculating, I'll leave you with this:
ReplyDeleteWhat if children really don't suffer any harm from being raised by gay and lesbian parents (as the data appears to show)?
Technically, its a matter of being disadvantaged without the truly integrated love between both genders as a role model for the child. You can find that a child in an all-white school wasn't harmed, but would that make it okay?
What if, a generation down the line, allowing gay marriage is shown to have benefited society?
What benefits would you expect to see?