Would-be world leader Michele Bachmann [resists neutering marriage] because marriage between a man and a woman is "what the law has been for years and years." Does Bachmann pine for a time, pre-1967, when it was illegal in many states for interracial couples to wed?
That's not a very good comparison.
This is actually a very different matter than bans on interracial marriage. See here and here.
If there is a "fundamental right" to marriage in law, it is to the union of one bride and one groom with certain restrictions, as made obvious by laws against polygamy, which is a form of marriage that has been practiced and recognized throughout history and is still practiced, and restrictions some states have preventing first cousins from marrying, though such marriages have also been practiced throughout history and are currently common in some cultures.
There is a right to a limited freedom of association, but not to a state-issued license. There hasn't been a single decision or action by SCOTUS recognizing a brideless or groomless union as marriage, or letting a ruling stand that did.
Not one of the Founding Fathers who wrote and adopted our Constitution, not a single great historical religious leader, not one of the great historical moral or civil rights leaders ever indicated that there was a right to have a brideless or groomless pairing recognized by law as marriage – not Frederick Douglass, not Susan B. Anthony, not Gandhi, not Martin Luther King, Jr. – none. Not a single President of the United States up until this writing has ever said a marriage exists without a bride or without a groom. Those who understand that marriage unites the sexes are in good company.
It is constitutional, moral, common, and necessary to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently; there is no obligation to treat a brideless or groomless couple, which is inherently different from a bride+groom union, the same as a bride+groom union. Skin color has nothing to do with marriage. Sex has everything to do with marriage.
For more, see…
The Race Card and Prop 8.
Is it Possible to Truly Achieve "Marriage Equality"?
The Opine Editorials on Identity Politics
Does she think same-sex couples threaten the existence of humans?
Perhaps she can see the obvious - they don't form marriages.
The argument that humans aren't reproducing enough is laughable.
Strawman much?
On the contrary, an argument that same-sex couples are better parents than heterosexual couples has some objective support.
Not when compared to a bride+groom adoptive couple with the same finances.
As more people realize that their lives are intertwined with gay people, they conclude that we are all the same.
But men and women are different.
In my years (and I've been here a couple more than Bachmann), if there is one thing I have learned, it is that love is better than hate.
Where did she show hate?
If the writer could pause for a moment and take the time to learn the Mrs. Bachmann was for some time a foster mother, and first hand saw the break down of families, then he wouldn't have to falsely imply racism or homophobia.
ReplyDelete"Not when compared to a bride+groom adoptive couple with the same finances."
ReplyDeleteInteresting -- I've never seen that research. Could you please provide a link or citation so I can check it out? Much appreciated.
Rob T, the assertion was "On the contrary, an argument that same-sex couples are better parents than heterosexual couples has some objective support." Notice the writer provides none. The letter writer was likely referring to a very small, recent study used the Prop 8 case. Assuming the findings are true that "same-sex couples" are better parents than "heterosexual couples" (though this ignores the lack of a guardian from one of the sexes), one must ask what constitutes a "couple"? If sex or sex-like behavior is the basis, did the study exclude "couples" who are no longer engaging in that activity? (That does happen.) If they are included, then why not, say, a mother and her father raising the mother's children? "Heterosexual couples" in such studies no doubt include reluctant fathers, stepparents who already had other children, and all sorts of complicating factors.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, since same-sex couples are incapable of creating children without the aid of third parties, most of them with children have used "third party" reproduction, adopted, or have fought for custody from the partners they had heterosexual sex with. All of this takes money. As such, "same-sex couples raising children" as a group are better off financially than heterosexual couples with children, as a group. Also, heterosexual couples have children as a result of sex. Not all of them wanted children. With same-sex couples, almost all of them REALLY REALLY REALLY wanted to have children. That all makes a difference.
I'm certain that if one compares only heterosexual couples who had children through adoption or third party reproduction with same-sex couples who did the same, adjusting for income, the same-sex couples do not come out as better parents.
See this:
Hmmm... here's the link...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17119478/ns/health-childrens_health/t/adoptive-parents-more-invested-study-says/#.Tn_hEdSCh2A
Regardless, if one denies the importance of having both a mother and a father, isn't one denying there's a difference between men and women in personal relationships? If is there is no difference between men and women in personal relationships, then surely anyone should be happy getting married to someone of the opposite sex, and this there is no "need" to neuter marriage.
ReplyDeleteWalrus, you wrote, "Not when compared to a bride+groom adoptive couple with the same finances."
ReplyDeleteI checked your link, and nothing in it provides a comparison between same-sex and opposite-sex adoptive parents with the same finances. Your statement may be true, but I didn't see any evidence for it in the link you provided.
I'm disappointed, because I've never found data on such a comparison, and it would certainly be a valuable contribution to the discussion.
Rob,
ReplyDeleteQuick question, who made the assertion that there was evidence that one kind of couple was a better parent than the other?
On Lawn, Walrus said this: "Not when compared to a bride+groom adoptive couple with the same finances."
ReplyDeleteThat statement implies that such a comparison has been conducted -- otherwise, Walrus could not make this assertion? I'd dearly love to see the comparison data on which Walrus based his statement.
Rob, You are incorrect.
ReplyDeleteStarting a sentence with "not" is a kind of ellipsis, it infers a part of the sentence or subject from the preceding sentences. One does not, without establishing context, just start sentences with the contradictory "not".
So, I'll ask you again, who made the assertion that there was evidence that one kind of couple was a better parent than the other?
Since there are only Walrus and the author of the article he was responding to, and you realize by plain language of starting a sentence with "not" that the assertion isn't original to Walrus, this should be very easy.
On Lawn, the person to whom Walrus was talking made the assertion that one type of couple was better than another. I do not know whether that person provided Walrus with evidence.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't know who that person is, so I can't ask them about it.
On the other hand, Walrus is here and available for conversation. He answered, "Not when compared to a bride+groom adoptive couple with the same finances."
Such a statement implies this comparison has in fact been conducted -- otherwise, how could Walrus say what does or does not happen when the comparison is made? And I asked for is the data on which Walrus made his assertion about the results of the comparison. As of yet I have not seen it, which is a shame because I think we all agree it would be valuable information.
Rob: > "the person to whom Walrus was talking made the assertion that one type of couple was better than another."
ReplyDeleteCorrect.
Rob: > "I do not know whether that person provided Walrus with evidence."
The quote says, "an argument that same-sex couples are better parents than heterosexual couples has some objective support."
That is clearly a claim that such evidence exists.
Rob: > how could Walrus say what does or does not happen when the comparison is made?
Walrus is free to make assertions based solely on the merits of the evidence provided. Peer review works in this way to call into question results and other assertions based on flawed investigative processes.
Rob: > And I asked for is the data on which Walrus made his assertion about the results of the comparison.
Walrus is no doubt noting that the wealth of evidence in studies in parenting comparing hetero and homo sexual couples shows no or insignificant difference.
Feel free to search the archives for parenting studies, many of which are even in categorical label "same-sex parenting" to the right of the page. That will give a good review the research already presented on this site.
However, Playful's assertion that no inference can be made in comparing same-sex to both-sex couples unless they are compared across similar family incomes is widely regarded as true across social sciences.
1. On Lawn, I'm not taking a position on whether Walrus's (very specific) statement is true or not.
ReplyDelete2. I can't take a position, because I haven't seen data on that statement.
3. Walrus's implies he has seen such data, and that excited me because I would like to see it, too.
4. The reason I'd like to see it is that I agree with you "that no inference can be made in comparing same-sex to both-sex couples unless they are compared across similar family incomes is widely regarded as true across social sciences."
5. When I asked for a reference, he posted a link that did not make the (very specific) comparison of which he spoke.
6. In the 34 articles under "same sex parenting" to which you directed me, I could not find a reference to comparison between same-sex and opposite-sex adoptive parents with the same finances.
7. If I merely missed it, I'd be much obliged if you would point it out to me, as I agree with you that such a comparison is needed.
I'll agree with 1 and 2, but three is incorrect.
ReplyDeleteAs I said earlier, "Playful's assertion that no inference can be made in comparing same-sex to both-sex couples unless they are compared across similar family incomes is widely regarded as true across social sciences."
Playful's assertion was not one of contradictory evidence but in proper accounting for known influences in the outcomes measured by the studies.
If you want, you can find a lot of work on the subject of family outcomes based on income.
And look again at those studies, as I recall they all speak specifically to either adjusting results or narrowing their selection pools based on income.
On Lawn, I suppose we're just going to have to disagree on the meaning of Walrus's statement. To me, "Not when compared to a bride+groom adoptive couple with the same finances," clearly implies the existence of contradictory evidence to support that "Not."
ReplyDeleteI understand that you disagree. I don't mind. I'm just disappointed because I thought he had seen data providing a comparison between same-sex and opposite-sex adoptive parents with the same finances.
We all agree that such data would be valuable. But as yet, no one has established its existence.
Again, if I'm wrong on that point, I would be most grateful to be corrected.
Walrus, regarding your 9/25/2011 10:40:00 PM question to me: I don't understand what this has to do with my request for data, but I think your reasoning would be air tight only if the parent/child relationship were essentially the same as the spouse/spouse relationship. I do not believe this to be the case.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRob: > implies the existence of contradictory evidence to support that "Not."
ReplyDeleteAnd there isn't?
Why isn't the wealth of knowledge of the influence of income on family outcomes not evidence to his assertion?
Why aren't the studies pointed out already in same-sex parenting evidence for his claim?
The problem I have with your comment is it is clearly ignorant of the conversation, it is almost requesting out of whole cloth the need for a specific study.
You've simply over-constrained your search, and never given a reason why except an over-reaching interpretation of Playful's comment.
I don't mind that you disagree either, its just that your assertion is plainly over-reaching and contradicted by evidence provided.
I hope that clears up the discussion better.
On Lawn, I don't think I've over-constrained the search. My request is based precisely on Walrus's statement about a comparison between same-sex and opposite-sex adoptive parents with the same finances.
ReplyDeleteIf you think this is over-constrained, you should take that up with Walrus.
I don't know whether his statement is correct or not, and was hoping to see information backing up that statement.
As of yet, no one has provided me with any.
By the way, I'm inclined to suspect Walrus is right: I imagine research is likely to indicate adoptive same-sex couples will show no advantage over adoptive opposite-sex couples when financial status is controlled for.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't know whether this suspicion is correct. Walrus stated it as an established fact. I am asking for the data on which he is basing his statement.
Rob: > If you think this is over-constrained, you should take that up with Walrus.
ReplyDeleteWhy when the requirement is your own?
Please address the questions specifically above about why the evidence provided is insufficient.
On Lawn, the requirement is not mine. It was based entirely on Walrus's statement comparing same-sex and opposite-sex adoptive couples with the same finances. If he had not made this particular statement, I would not be requesting this particular data.
ReplyDeleteThe evidence provided thus far makes no comparison between same-sex and opposite-sex adoptive couples with the same finances, so the evidence provided does not apply.
Rob: > On Lawn, the requirement is not mine.
ReplyDeleteThe following quote from your comment shows it is yours...
"The evidence provided thus far makes no comparison between same-sex and opposite-sex adoptive couples with the same finances, so the evidence provided does not apply."
The evidence provided does apply, though your request is useful but not a requirement.
But your inability to reckon with the evidence provided, and need to throw it out, is worrisome and unwarranted.
On Lawn, are you saying that the link Walrus provided compares same-sex and opposite-sex adoptive couples with the same finances?
ReplyDeleteIf so, please point it out.
Or are you saying that one of the 34 articles in the "same sex parenting" section of this blog compares same-sex and opposite-sex adoptive couples with the same finances?
If so, please point it out.
As of this point, no evidence has been presented about such a comparison.
Rob: > On Lawn, are you saying that the link Walrus provided compares same-sex and opposite-sex adoptive couples with the same finances?
ReplyDeleteNow you are really reaching.
Should I count the number of times I pointed out that the inference of available evidence is sufficient for Walrus to doubt the claims of the author?
How is it you've missed it so many times?
What I'm saying, and since you're replied to it I can expect that you've read it already, is that you are overly constraining what you are accepting as evidence.
His assertion is grounded in the evidence shown, even if not specific to adoption.
Yes, I have seen you claim that the inference of all available evidence is sufficient for Walrus to doubt the claims of the letter writer.
ReplyDeleteI have not seen you explain why.
I have explained that I also doubt the claims of the letter writer. But Walrus did not express merely express doubt. He asserted that the author was wrong.
He has stated that the letter writers's claim is shown to be wrong when one compares same-sex and opposite-sex adoptive couples with the same finances. This implies that such a comparison is available for review.
No one has presented evidence that such a comparison exists.
You have repeatedly asserted that evidence has been provided, but you have not explained why evidence that does not compare same-sex and opposite-sex adoptive couples with the same finances is sufficient to establish a comparison between same-sex and opposite-sex adoptive couples with the same finances.
Rob: > I have not seen you explain why.
ReplyDeleteHow did you miss that? It was a point that Walrus first made, that his burden is only to cast sufficient doubt on the assertion of the writer.
So lets look at it this way, a reasonable facsimile of the conversation is this...
Letter: "There is even some evidence that same sex couples are better parents for adoption."
Walrus: "There is not any evidence to be found that looks specifically across similar incomes."
You've already conceded the following points, but not explained how you fail at that point to see their relevance....
Tell me why Walrus has to come up with a survey that he says does not exist?
Tell me how the general expectation in social science for income levels to influence family outcomes is not sufficient to point that out?
Tell me now pointing out that the wealth of information available that there might be no difference in outcome comparing homo v hetero couples is not relevant?
You haven't. You've argued like a two year old purely with expectation and mistaken reading of what Walrus said.
You've made up an entirely different exchange than the one in Walrus's blog post. You've completely changed Walrus's reply.
ReplyDeleteIf your version of Walrus's statement were what he actually said, I'd have had no reason to ask for evidence. But it's not. He made an assertion about the results of comparing same-sex and opposite-sex adoptive parents with the same finances.
And still, no one has provided evidence of that.
And then you say this: "Tell me why Walrus has to come up with a survey that he says does not exist?"
But Walrus did not say that! That exists only in your imagined version of what Walrus said. If you want me to stop dealing with reality and instead grapple with things that happened only in your imagination, I'll have to decline and bow out.
What's bizarre about this is that I only asked my original question because I wanted to know whether there was actual evidence to back up Walrus's claim that same-sex adoptive couples are not better than opposite-sex adoptive couples at the same income levels.
What's even more bizarre is that I suspect Walrus is right when he says this -- I simply wanted to know if he basing his statement on research I didn't know about.
That's why I wrote, "Interesting -- I've never seen that research. Could you please provide a link or citation so I can check it out? Much appreciated."
If someone had responded, "There is not any evidence to be found that looks specifically across similar incomes," that would have answered my question. I'm glad you finally said it, though. Now we can know Walrus has no direct evidence to support his statement:
"I'm certain that if one compares only heterosexual couples who had children through adoption or third party reproduction with same-sex couples who did the same, adjusting for income, the same-sex couples do not come out as better parents."
That statement strikes me as likely to be true, but as you've pointed out, we don't have any studies demonstrating. I sure wish someone had just said that to begin with. Would have saved us all a lot of time.
I'm glad this is settled. And I'm done. Now that you're insulting me for not responding appropriately to things that Walrus did not actually say, the whole conversation has become too surreal to continue.
Author: "On the contrary, an argument that same-sex couples are better parents than heterosexual couples has some objective support".
ReplyDeleteWalrus: "[But it does] Not [have support] when compared to a bride+groom adoptive couple with the same finances."
I could have worded it better. The study to which the letter writer was referring was likely a dubious one with a small sample, comparing ALL "heterosexual couples" with a small group of same-sex couples who adopted or used third party reproduction.
ReplyDeleteNo insults this time? Okay.
ReplyDeleteNow how about this:
Author: "On the contrary, an argument that same-sex couples are better parents than heterosexual couples has some objective support".
Walrus: "[Same sex parents are] Not [better parents] when compared to a bride+groom adoptive couple with the same finances."
So we've established that Walrus's comment has two possible interpretations. But he clarified this in his initial response to my question by saying,
"I'm certain that if one compares only heterosexual couples who had children through adoption or third party reproduction with same-sex couples who did the same, adjusting for income, the same-sex couples do not come out as better parents."
That fits exactly with my interpretation of his statement. And then he immediately proceeded to offer a link which in no way substantiated that statement.
What's odd here is that we're arguing while in perfect agreement over the core issue: Same-sex adoptive parents probably aren't better than opposite-sex adoptive parents of the same income level, though there is not any evidence to be found that looks specifically across similar incomes.
Rob: That fits exactly with my interpretation of his statement.
ReplyDeleteAnd you fail again.
Even in that statement Walrus is alluding to the wealth of evidence shown already here at Opine, and in no wise requires a specific study to bear out adoption related outcomes.
We might agree on this small change...
"Same-sex [foster] parents probably aren't better than opposite-sex [foster] parents of the same income level"
For the purposes of the studies one might find, I doubt there is much difference. Simply banding together to raise children has little difference between the two.
But in reality being able to have the diversity of a man and a woman as a permanent fixture of family creation has benefits that are 1) Detected in studies that look at the differences in the influence of fathers and mothers, and 2) the social understanding and expectation that comes with adoption as a way to restore natural parenting where it was taken away by tragedy.
Yes, yes, yes, the wealth of evidence, so much evidence, so many studies.
ReplyDeleteExcept no one will point me to one.
Hold on, I'm confused by this change:
ReplyDelete"Same-sex [foster] parents probably aren't better than opposite-sex [foster] parents of the same income level"
Why the change? Are you saying you DON'T think: "Same-sex adoptive parents probably aren't better than opposite-sex adoptive parents of the same income level"?
That would be an awfully surprising endorsement of same-sex adoption. That can't possibly be what you intended. So why the change?
Rob, you seem to be going out of your way to ignore what has been presented.
ReplyDeleteI can't help that.
We already discussed that your specific requirements of a study was over-constrained for Walrus's point. We already pointed to a label that has many studies in it about same-sex parenting.
But you say not one study has been shown.
Again, its your problem not mine.
Rob: Why the change? Are you saying [...]
I'll help you by copying and pasting my previous answer which seems to settle that question nicely..
For the purposes of the studies one might find, I doubt there is much difference. Simply banding together to raise children has little difference between the two.
But in reality being able to have the diversity of a man and a woman as a permanent fixture of family creation has benefits that are 1) Detected in studies that look at the differences in the influence of fathers and mothers, and 2) the social understanding and expectation that comes with adoption as a way to restore natural parenting where it was taken away by tragedy.
And still no one will point me to a relevant study.
ReplyDeleteI've looked at the articles in the "same-sex parenting" bucket. Can you tell me which one you're referring to? And please don't send me to studies that explain how children are harmed when their parents split up and the child is left to grow up in a single-parent home, or a home where one parent is distant and uninvolved. Those studies have no necessary connection to parenting by same-sex couples.
"We already discussed that your specific requirements of a study was over-constrained for Walrus's point." Yes, we did, and we established that my requirements were exactly in accord with Walrus's statement. We also established that there is here is not evidence to be found that looks specifically across similar incomes.
Meaning that you've admitted Walrus's claim is unsupported by evidence.
I don't know what this sentence means: "Simply banding together to raise children has little difference between the two." Perhaps you can rephrase.
In the meantime, please, please, please point me to a relevant study.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRob: > And still no one will point me to a relevant study.
ReplyDeleteYou have relevence issues. You can lead someone to studies but you can't make them think.
Rob: > I've looked at the articles in the "same-sex parenting" bucket. [...] And please don't send me to studies that explain how children are harmed when their parents split up and the child is left to grow up in a single-parent home
Sounds like you found the wrong bucket.
Rob: > Yes, we did, and we established that my requirements were exactly in accord with Walrus's statement.
You have serious honesty issues.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"You have serious honesty issues."
ReplyDeleteNo, I have serious sarcasm issues. I laughed out loud when I read,"We already discussed that your specific requirements of a study was over-constrained for Walrus's point," as if you established your point and there was nothing more to be said.
"You have relevence issues."
That's an unintentionally(?) funny reply to a request for relevance.
"Sounds like you found the wrong bucket."
That's the bucket you sent me to.
"You can lead someone to studies..."
No, apparently you can't. Or you won't. I don't know which. Perhaps it's both. But it's clear you're not going to. I don't know why. I could speculate that you have serious honesty issues, but I truly think you're sincere and the problem goes deeper than that.
Either way, it's a shame.
Rob: > as if you established your point
ReplyDeleteMore accurately, as if we "discussed" my point.
Rob: > a request for relevance
No, it was you slithering for a way to deny evidence.
Rob: > That's the bucket you sent me to.
The "single parenting" bucket is not what I sent you to. Please try again.
Rob: > Or you won't
Or, can and have, and you're still trying to slither out from it.
After all this talking, the only thing I'm sure about is that you fear studies about single parenting even though you are sent to a same-sex parenting label, you require a specific evidence on the account of the person who specifically said there was "not" evidence, and haven't seemed to have an accurate understanding of arguments shown to you even after multiple repetition.
The assertion that needs the support is this one:
ReplyDeleteRob T: it [a study specifically comparing opposite sex adoptive parents to same sex adoptive parents of similar economic background] would certainly be a valuable contribution to the discussion.
That statement implies that [a study measuring the contribution] has been conducted -- otherwise, [Rob T.] could not make this assertion.
Even if we don't hold Rob T to the same (baseless) standard he is applying to Playful, Rob T hasn't even explained what "contribution" such a study might make on "the discussion." Go back and re-read everything Rob T has said and answer these two questions based on Rob T's claims:
1) Assuming a study existed showing that same-sex adoptive couples were better parents than opposite sex adoptive couples, what "valuable contribution" would that make to "the discussion?"
2) Assuming a study existed showing that same-sex adoptive couples were worse parents than opposite sex adoptive couples, what "valuable contribution" would that make to "the discussion?"
In contemplating "the contribution" asked for in the above two questions, it may be instructive to consider "the contribution" the following hypothetical studies might have on other hypothetical "discussions."
A) If there were a study purporting to show that adoptive parents were superior to biological parents, what "contribution" would that have on a discussion about whether the government should take children from their biological parents and give them to adoptive parents?
B) If there were a study purporting to show that wealthier parents were superior to poorer parents, what "contribution" would that have on a discussion about whether the government should take children from poorer parents and give them to wealthier ones? Or how about a discussion of whether poorer parents should be allowed to adopt?
I await the evidence Rob T has seen that led him to make such an outlandish claim.
Rob T: We all agree that such data would be valuable. ...
ReplyDeleteAgain, if I'm wrong on that point, I would be most grateful to be corrected.
You're welcome!
Rob T: I think your reasoning [about the importance of the difference between men and women in personal relationships]would be air tight only if the parent/child relationship were essentially the same as the spouse/spouse relationship. I do not believe this to be the case.
ReplyDeleteAnother unlikely assertion by Rob T. Rob T claims that the difference between men and women is important to adults, but not to children. He does not cite the study that shows the differences between the sexes is less important to the development of children than it is to the development of adults, let alone unimportant to child development. He also does not explain the mechanism that makes something so unimportant to children, the difference between the sexes, become of such driving importance as those same children mature.
Maybe Rob T didn't mean the difference is unimportant or less important to children. Perhaps he meant that children are better suited to have their needs go unmet than adults are, that at least in this regard adults are weak, children are resilient, and children should therefore sacrifice for the adults in their care. Surely Rob T wouldn't make such a counter-intuitive claim without hard data to back himself up. In that case I would be most interested in seeing what data could have driven Rob T to that conclusion.