Justin: Unlike the liberals on this board, I want for all children - black, white, and in-between - to be raised by their biological parents. And it is certainly a momentous goal for people who actually care about the wellbeing of children.

Where is your evidence that “traditional marraige” contributes more to the well-being of children than non-traditional parental relationships? The only argument that you could put forward that would make an ounce of sense is the documented fact that children raised in single-parent homes don’t generally do as well as those raised in homes with two parents. Gender or marraige, then, are hardly factors. Marraige is nothing but a social construct; love and care for one’s children is not.

Unless you can convincingly demonstrate otherwise (here’s a hint: by “convincingly” I don’t mean the emotional hysteria and lack of hard evidence put forward by “pro-family” outfits), I have no choice but to conclude that your arguments stem not from documented evidence but rather from religious and/or “moral” prejudice.

Justin: Shelley, I have a suspicion that in your googling you selectively visited gay and liberal websites and avoided websites that were Christian or conservative

Okay, this comment actually made me laugh out loud.

Sadie, the fact that single motherhood and divorce is destructive to children has been well documented for more than 40 years. You may want to do more digging than checking out a wiki article whose neutrality is disputed. I’ve published links earlier in the thread, but since they were not checked, perhaps I should be more explicit.

The first person to really pay attention to family was a Democrat - the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. When he worked for the Department of Labor they kept unemployment statistics. In the 1950’s out of wedlock childbirths were correlated to unemployment. But in the 1960’s the statistics suddenly changed and the correlation stopped. This is the Moynihan Scissors:

Another early piece of data was that the famous 1964 Civil Rights Acts had a clause requiring a study on black schooling. The theory was that black schools were worse than white schools, and this caused poverty. The famous sociologist James Coleman was put in charge of this study and to his surprise, he found that school played only a minor role. The primary cause of poverty was the breakdown of the family. Moynihan released a report about this in 1965 and was pilloried by the left and called a racist. Kill the messenger because you don’t like the message; poverty is caused by the breakdown of the married, two-parent family. After words the left went into denial mode.

No one really studied the link between marriage and poverty because the no one wanted to find out the truth. A few conservatives like Charles Murray and Thomas Sowell raised the issue but they were attacked or ignored. It was only when the Sara MacLanahan, a sociologist with strong left-wing bona fides, published Growing Up With a Single Parent that the left wing community started to come around. William Julius Wilson tried to stem the tide with his theory that the loss of manufacturing jobs in the city resulted in increasing out of wedlock childbirths among blacks who no longer had the economic means to marry, but this objection has not been sustained because immigrants - including African immigrants - have found ample work in the same cities in which blacks have foundered. IT has also been challenged by studies showing that most out of wedlock childbirths occur to women who have employed boyfriends - it is just that the relationship dissolves in the future.

Nowadays no one on the left will try to challenge the theory on marriage and poverty, but they don’t really have a lot of energy to actually fight for marriage.

Further reading:
Dan Quayle Was Right a reprint of a long article published in the lefty magazine, the Atlantic Monthly. It is a pretty comprehensive survey of the research for the last 30 years.
How Welfare Reform Worked Another survey of the research with an emphasis documenting the predictions of lefty sociologists in 1996 compared to the actual results (which were generally positive).
Marriage and Caste. There are two America. The richest fifth have 92% of their children raised by their parents, but only 22% of the poorest children are raised by both parents.
Why We Don’t Marry an article by sociologist James Wilson. Makes a lot of points, such as the fact that welfare benefits have kept up with inflation if you include the benefits from public housing, food stamps, and Medicaid.

Marraige is nothing but a social construct;

And therein lies the rub.  My dear Sadie, if you wish to deconstruct this construct, the burden lies with you, not with poor ol’ Justin.  Justin’s commonsense is telling him that there will be differences that result from the lack of a father or mother in homosexual home.  Even the expert’s agree that there is: 

“It doesn’t make sense to claim that there are no differences based on the research that’s been done so far,” said Dr. Judith Stacey, a professor of sociology and gender studies at the University of Southern California and the lead author of the paper, which appeared in The American Sociological Review.

Well of course it doesn’t make sense to claim. That is what makes it so incredibly difficult to believe that there wouldn’t be.  That is what has Justin and Darryl so uptight.  So what are the differences?

Well, for the longest time we have heard, and do hear, being gay won’t rub off on you or your kids.  It’s a nice play on an old saw.  Kudos for the PR campaign with it.  When it comes to raising children though, even the experts recognize and minimize what they see as “political” differences by the fact that it does seem to rub off:

“We recognize the political dangers of pointing out that recent studies indicate that a higher proportion of children with lesbigay parents are themselves apt to engage in homosexual activity,”

Interesting data.  Either their are serious methodological flaws with the study, or the gay community is dead wrong on its premise that homosexual behavior is not a lifestyle choice that is not environmentally fostered. 

In addition, when looking at children raised in lesbian households, lacking a father figure, the male children are less masculine in their behavior, while the females are more masculine. Surprising?  Of course not.  It is exactly what was expected and what would be predicted.

Further, the high promiscuity rates of the parents have translated into high promiscuity rates of the children.  Surprising?  Again, no.  Without commenting on whether this is turning children into sluts or sexually empowering them, it is sufficient to say that a whole host of behavior is learned from parents, healthy and unhealthy.  This is yet another example of that.

Commonsense says there will be differences.  There are differences.  There are likely to be even more differences as the longitudal studies with wider samplings come forth.  Darryl and Justin, in unpolished fashion point out that they see a whole host of possible problems.  Those possible problems are not illusory, as the expert’s point out.

The question is not, does a household lacking a mom and/ or a dad (since even homosexuals themselves admit that taking on the traditional role of a male role model is at odds with their typical role within the homosexual community) hurt the children.  The question is:  Are their any studies that show tangible benefits to children by allowing adoption by same-sex couples.  I know of none.

I can’t think of a single study that shows there are benefits to children adopted by same-sex couples versus oppossing sex couples.  I guess because the studies I have heard of were trying to see if there were any downsides to children growing up in same-sex households.  And a study done in Canada found that there was no conclusive evidence to support the theory that children growing up in a same-sex household were any worse off than a child that did not.  The study below actually shows that if same-sex couples were allowed to marry, children would be at an advantage.
From Census 2000

This study shows that children of same-sex couple do fine.

This study also suggests that commone stereotypes are not supported by the data.

There are a lot of factors all tangled up in this discussion: the practicality of the gay legal strategy, duelling studies, Wikipedia vs. JAMA, and frankly, a refusal to imagine how the world could still go round if people stood on it differently.

Consider: whatever their percentage, gays who want to marry constitute a self-selected group of people who are trying to effect stable partnerships.  That’s good for them, and it’s good for society too.  If they are raising children, it’s good for those children.  And there are huge numbers of us who seem to want to stop them.

Will gay couples succeed?  Some will, some won’t, just like heterosexual couples.  But any study of gay couples in the US must take into account the tremendous social forces against those couples.  If they succeed in the face of such odds, it is to their credit, and constututes a case study in the possibility of others’ success.

There are other countries that have allowed gay marriage for quite some time now.  Shouldn’t they be all smoking holes in the ground by now, ridden with every conceivable social ill predicted by the opponents of gay marriage?  If gay marriage is an experiment, it’s fared about ‘even’ in places where it’s been tried.

As for the putative low value on marriage in the gay community, is that any surprise?  Given the hostility of some people, it’s a wonder any gays want to marry at all.  For me this is simply a moral issue, a civil rights issue.  I want no part of singling out a minority of free people and saying; “you cannot marry”.  We allow prisoners to marry, the mentally retarded, physically handicapped, uneducated, the drug-addicted.  Hell, we let Tom Cruise marry.  OK, bad example…

The “please think of the children!” objection is nonsense.  Unless you just can’t stand the thought of one man giving another a kiss before he goes off to work, you’d be hard pressed to come up with a real reason why they couldn’t give a child a hug and send them off to school.  It’s just a simple, human thing.

Thanks DOF for that insightful comment.  The only real objection people have to gay marriage, is that they are afraid of change, or have a some religious teaching against it.  There is no other reason to object to gay marriage.  Justin can make claim to whatever he wants, but he has a religious objection, and is finding whatever he can to support what his faith has taught him.

Sexy Sadie: “Certainly� is a strong word, Daryl. Where is your evidence for such certainty? Surely it doesn’t come from the American Psychological Association’s research.

Nothing resembling science has come from the APA in the past 20 years or so.

Don’t just take my word for it: Even the former President of the APA says it’s gone off the deep end when it comes to research on homosexuality:

Speaking to a rapt audience of about 100 fellow professionals at the Marina Del Rey Marriott Hotel on November 12, 2005, psychologists Nicholas Cummings, Ph.D. and Rogers Wright, Ph.D. had much to say about the profession they had served throughout their long and distinguished careers—charging “intellectual arrogance and zealotry” within a profession that they say is now dominated by social-activist groups.

Dr. Cummings said he has had a career-long commitment to promoting diversity. Therefore has been dismayed to see activists exploit the stature of the parent body to further their own social aims—pushing the APA to take positions in areas where they have no conclusive evidence.

When writing their newly released book Destructive Trends in Mental Health, Wright and Cummings invited the participation of a number of fellow psychologists who flatly turned them down--fearing loss of tenure, loss of promotion, and other forms of professional retaliation. “We were bombarded by horror stories,” Dr. Cummings said. “Their greatest fear was of the gay lobby, which is very strong in the APA.”

A common tactic is to reference studies “that are trivial or out-of-date, while ignoring more important, recent, larger, better, and superceding research.”

“The most common pattern is by far the simplest: the overwhelming mountain of contrary evidence is simply never mentioned.”

Here’s what they have to say about Dr. Charlotte Patterson who authored the article you linked to, Sadie:

Yet one other frequent contributor to legal testimony, the Lawrence brief included, is lesbian activist-researcher Charlotte Patterson, Ph.D., who in a landmark case of same-sex adoption was cited for refusing to turn over her research notes, contributing to her side’s defeat. “Her conduct was a clear violation of a court order,” said Satinover, “yet she is still writing briefs in current court cases.”

Consi: My dear Sadie, if you wish to deconstruct this construct, the burden lies with you, not with poor ol’ Justin.  Justin’s commonsense is telling him that there will be differences that result from the lack of a father or mother in homosexual home.

You, Justin, and Daryl are free to believe that marraige is divinely inspired. However, the fact remains that as long as we are here on Earth, marraige is a social contract arbitrated by and for humans. In some societies polygamy is the norm; in others, polyandry. India has practiced the institution of arranged marraige for centuries. Why should gay marraige be considered so repellent? Because its participants are of the same gender? I personally have yet to hear a single decent, compelling argument against gay marraige.

Daryl: Nothing resembling science has come from the APA in the past 20 years or so.

Okay, Daryl, we know how you feel about biological science and, as such, you’re probably equally wary of psychology. What would you think if the testimony came from the very ones you and Justin purport to care so very deeply about, the children themselves? Mind you, this is just one of the many studies (most of them peer-reviewed) that effectively puts to rest the notion that gay parenting is somehow more harmful to children than traditional parenting.

Here’s a hypothetical question: suppose that it was determined, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that gay parenting is actually better for children than any traditional methods. Would you still oppose it? If so, don’t you care about “the children?”

Shelley, I have a suspicion that in your googling you selectively visited gay and liberal websites and avoided websites that were Christian or conservative. A trip to PubMed (an online database of peer reviewed studies) shows:

Let me begin by telling you that your source article is from the journal Psychological Reports: In terms of credibility in the psychological sciences it is on the very lowest end. It has a very high acceptance rate (meaning that the article you referenced was very likely rejected by more credible journals). No one who has convincing ‘goods’ publishes there. You’ll need to do much better than that in your search for evidence.

Second, I’d want you to know that I don’t google for this kind of information. Any reference that I don’t know off the top of my head I call up on PsychINFO—that’s the American Psychological Association’s index of psychological publications. It is by subscription only, but you can access it on any campus if you want to do some real research.

Maybe it’s not you, but I thought you all were saying it was a hormone deficiency that resulted in homosexuality because the older brothers got all the goodies?

No, it isn’t because older brothers get all the goodies—it is most likely because younger brothers get some extra goodies that don’t belong to them.

That aside, females, from humans to chimps, are just as driven by the desire to get laid. They are more discrete about it though.

Sorry, consigliere—it just ain’t so. The definitive word on the topic is that across multiple measures and studies, men have more frequent and intense desire for sex than women. There’s an outstanding review article on the subject. See: Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevent evidence. By Baumeister, Catanese, & Vohs (2001) in Personality and Social Psychology Review. 5(3), 242-273.

As an aside, you shouldn’t confuse appetite with enjoyment—men may eat more, but women enjoy food just as much

But do most same-sex couples accept the norm of sexual exclusivity? In a 1999 survey of such couples in Massachusetts, sociologist Gretchen Stiers found that only 10 percent of the men and 32 percent of the women thought that a “committed� intimate relationship entailed sexual exclusivity.

Here you seem to have missed my point about the fact that one of the consequences of the long-standing bias against gay relationships is the cognitive separation of intimacy and sexuality for homosexuals: There are consequences for people who are not permitted to marry. (And yes, there is a precedent for this—slaves were not permitted marriage either and this had a profound effect on relationships between African American men and women).

The only argument that you could put forward that would make an ounce of sense is the documented fact that children raised in single-parent homes don’t generally do as well as those raised in homes with two parents.

Sadie, while I would agree that (on average) children fare less well in single parent homes, I don’t want to see anyone infer causation from correlation here.

There are many reasons why children fare worse in single parent and divorced homes, including demographics (i.e., income is a very important factor—more important in single-parent families than two-parent families), maternal depression, alcohol use, the quality of the relationship with the non-resident parent, and family patterns of violence. (See the extensive and well-respected work of Mavis Hetherington on this topic.)

Yes, it would be wonderful if only loving committed couples who loved their children procreated (whether gay or straight), but alas, this is not so nor has it ever been—so loving committed parents (of whatever orientation) are good for kids.

Consigliere, I don’t want to quote your whole posting at 2:12—just let me ask the source of your data. You’ve suggested that the children of gay parents are more likely to engage in homosexual activity (which, if true, doesn’t make them gay, by the way), but you’ll need to give me a hint on your source so I can evaluate it. 

The question is:  Are their any studies that show tangible benefits to children by allowing adoption by same-sex couples.  I know of none.

Please see my previous posting that referred to an article demonstrating that there were no differences between children adopted by straight of same-sex parents. Consquently, there are tangible benefits to these kids.

Nothing resembling science has come from the APA in the past 20 years or so.

Well, that’s a vast overgeneralization, wouldn’t you say? Yup. There’s been some work that is absolute crap (Justin’s Psychological Reports being a case in point). But of course, this is the case in virtually

all

That’s why it is well worth having a strong background in statistics and research methods if you’re going to try to evaluate this stuff.

Shelley:

I’ve not suggested increased homosexual activity in children from lesbian homes; the studies confirmed it.  One of the articles I’ve cited to and the one I believe you want is :  Judith Stacey & Timothy Biblarz, “(How) does the sexual orientation of parents matter?” American Sociological Review, 2001-APR

I truly wish I could find the prior thread here on SEB in which SS, Elwed, GM, zilch and myself previously had a similar discussion. Most of the literature is cited in that thread already, if I recall correctly.  If anybody locates that thread, please let me know. 

Sadie:

And you are free to make assumptions.  When you do, expect those assumptions to be wrong.  As in here:

You, Justin, and Daryl are free to believe that marraige is divinely inspired.

As to the social contract, you are right and I agree.  My point for starting this thread was to tell my friend before you go deconstructing long-standing constructs, better make sure the society sanctioning that social contract is on board.  As we know now, at the current time it is not.

Apart from ‘Think of the children!’ what exactly are Justin’s and Daryl’s objection to a legal gay partnership?  I would hazard a guess most gay couples do not have children.  Gays are an attractive customer base because they lack children so have more disposable income.

According to Justin:

We already know what happens when you introduce non-biological guardians into the family: increased rates of poverty, domestic violence, child abuse (physical and sexual), bad grades, dropping out of school, suicide, and low self-esteem. (Some reading available here).

And according to his link:

Filed by: Justin on May 24, 2006 @ 7:53 pm

If I were in charge of the GOP, I would play the “marriage and poverty� card like a broken record.

And then all I could find in the link was crap regarding “poverty” involve single moms.  NOTHING in all of that crap you quote would be applicable to children in a family with two comitted parents—gay or straight.

Enough of your wrong, broken record, Justin.

Your stereotypes are not supported by data that has been collected by studies concerning children raised by gay parents.

Girls raised by lesbians tended to be “more sexually adventurous and less chaste� than those raised by straight parents, while boys tended to be just the opposite. Boys also tended to be more fluid in their definitions of gender roles, while girls were much more independent and assertive. Children of both genders were found to be more sexually and culturally tolerant than their peers.

Whoa!  Ok, we definitely gotta nip this shit in the bud!

Stacey and Biblarz found that “nonbiological lesbian co-mothers� are “more skilled at parenting and more involved with the children than stepfathers� and that “lesbian partners in two-parent families...enjoy a greater level of synchronicity in parenting than do heterosexual partners.�

Ergo-- the best environment for the child is one that does not include a stepfather, but manages to work a gay stepmom in there somehow.

I love these debates.  The whole ‘gay people don’t make good parents,’ thing is so laughable when you consider the fact that the vast majority of -humans- are pretty crappy parents.

Consigliere wrote [concerning number of gay marriages in Mass during first year that gay marriage was available]:

The percentage of gays married in the first year. 1.8%.

This isolated figure, even if it were accurate, is a totally useless statistic.  What was the percentage of straight people in Mass that got married during the same time period?  What is the trend? What was the age distribution?  There are a number of gay couples that are in the closet (including military members).  What percentage of gay adults in commited relationships are not “out” enough that they would get married?  What are the other social factors that would not affect the straight marriage rate but would affect the gay marriage rate?

On the “children of homosexual parents are more likely to be homosexual” point, two thoughts, completely unresearched and off the top of my head.

1 - Even if the percentage of children with homosexual leaning were exactly the same in both hetero and homo households, the lack of stigma attached to the behavior in homosexual households would propably lead to more open and honest answers to the question, thus leading to a difference in the results of such a survey.

2 - Even if such an assumption is true, SO FUCKING WHAT? That it’s even being discussed is offensive as far as I’m concerned. It implies that homosexual behavior is a problem or a fault. Utter bullshit.

You know, children raised in Christian households are more likely to become Christians. That’s a much more frightening problem.

KPG: 2 - Even if such an assumption is true, SO FUCKING WHAT? That it’s even being discussed is offensive as far as I’m concerned. It implies that homosexual behavior is a problem or a fault. Utter bullshit.

Very well put, KPG. I’ve missed you, man!

Very well put, KPG. I’ve missed you, man!

Thank you, darling.

I’ve actually been around, just haven’t been posting. Haven’t had much to say, if you can imagine that......

That it’s even being discussed is offensive as far as I’m concerned. It implies that homosexual behavior is a problem

When we examine mental health issues we find that there are higher incidents of mental health issues in the homosexual population.

We found high rates of planned and actual deliberate self-harm and high levels of psychiatric morbidity as defined by CIS–R score among gay men (42%), lesbians (43%) and bisexual men and women (49%) compared with previous community surveys of (predominantly) heterosexual people. Meltzer et al (1995) and Singleton et al (2000) reported prevalence rates of mental disorder (defined by CIS–R score) of approximately 12% in men and 20% in women. The disparity between previous studies and our sample suggests higher psychiatric morbidity in the gay, lesbian and bisexual population. Alternatively, the higher rates of mental disorder in this survey might be due to differences in recruitment methods or biases inherent in snowball sampling (see below).

This should not be surprising to anyone in the gay community.  In fact, at a national lgbt gathering
in Washington D.C., in 2000 a survey was done which indicated that depression and mental health
was the top concern of lesbian respondents and the second top concern for gay men, AIDS being number one.  A full 75% of of the respondents believe that depression and other mental health issues are more prevalent in the lgbt community than in the general society. KY Brand Liquid Community Health Survey Reveals Top Concerns of Gay Men and Lesbians, Press Release, July 19, 2000, conducted by Bob Josefsberg.  Sadly, the studies back up their intutitive beliefs.

Utilizing dictionary.com to define “problem,” a “problem” is a “A situation, matter, or person that presents perplexity or difficulty.” An increased incidence of mental health issues is “a situation that presents difficulty.” In study after study, from the U.S. to much more tolerant communities, the results are universal-an increased incidence of mental health issues is correlated with those who practice homosexual behaviors.

That is not utter bullshit. It is a mental health issue that demands study so we can help those suffering.

Unfortunately, the trend will be to say “no homosexuality”. Normally, I might root for the cause, but it’s hard to be convinced when the strongest proponents of such ideals are Christians. At least here in North America.

The other thing I notice a lot of statements are missing, something that those who are defending the GBLT community here keep bringing up - cultural context. We’ve spent a goodly part of the last 30 years treating them like social garbage. You’d think that having to be a cultural rebel and having to absorb more of people’s crap might lend itself to any number of unhappy, unsavory, or outright unhealthy things. Especially where mental illness is concerned, states which are not the norm seem well appropriated to those who do not represent the norm.

I’m sure I’ve got a small stack of em too, and I’m straight as a board.

Consi: It is a mental health issue that demands study so we can help those suffering.

Preferably by magically ‘turning’ them into straights rather than accepting their differences and helping them accept their differences, yes?
Yeah, I know ...

It’s not open for debate ...

That is not utter bullshit. It is a mental health issue that demands study so we can help those suffering.

Consi, am I wrong to assume you know better than this?  Anyone who is markedly different from the main population will be more apt to experience mental health problems, because people treat them like pariahs. 

Everyone else gets to enjoy legally defined lifetime partnerships that connect intimacy and sexuality.  Straight people can walk down the street holding their lovers’ hands and other people smile at them. Straight people aren’t presumed to be pedophiles.  ‘Straight’ sex-addicts aren’t held to be representative of all straight people.  Straight people don’t have to go to court to hold on to their own children. 

Given all that, why wouldn’t gays experience depression, anxiety, and feelings of hopelessness?  But the solution isn’t really all that complicated.

Want to help gays?  Treat them like human beings.  Stop campaigning to keep them in second-class status.

Me: Now, let’s assume that there’s no rational way to actually prevent children from being raised in other circumstances (if I’m wrong here, please call me on it).

Justin: Consider yourself called. That is precisely what marriage has historically done, both in our society and in others: it has been the gatekeeper for proper family structure. 

I´m sorry, I should have been clear in my phrasing. I was trying to point out that, unless you want to massively overhaul the machinery of democracy, you cannot force people to raise children in the conservative ideal. Your argument is circular Justin; all you´re saying is that putting people in situation A puts them in situation A.