A non-religious argument against same-sex marriage

[jmac2112]

Greetings! Back on October 22, Joeyknothead started a debate with the following OP:

Many folks object to homosexuals having a right to marriage based on religious reasons - duh.

For debate:

Is there a qualitative difference between the message of the Westboro Baptist Church and "moderate" Christians / theists who oppose homosexual marriage?

I jumped in and started trying to nail Joey down on certain terms, and trying to find out what his theory of rights was. To make a long story short, I eventually started developing my own argument against gay marriage based not on religion or revelation, but on reason. I certainly didn't convince anyone, but I got some interesting responses, and I want to follow up on them. The original thread is now of page 39, and has gone off in a direction that has little to do with what I was attempting, so I thought I would start a new thread to deal with this issue.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a practicing Roman Catholic, and I will not try to pretend that my views have not been shaped by my faith, and by my experience of living out that faith to the best of my ability. However, I adhere to St. Anselm's ideal of "faith seeking understanding", so I try to explore issues like gay marriage from a non-religious point of view, especially on a site like this. I've never seen the point in arguing about specific Christian beliefs with someone who doesn't believe in God.

Anyway, I'm going to start by quoting part of what I wrote in response to Joeyknothead's challenge, and then take on Autodidact's criticisms of my argument. This will be very lengthy, but I would appreciate it if people would take the time to read the whole thing before weighing in with a response. Also, I realize that there were others who commented on my argument as well, and I hope at some point to get around to addressing the points they raised. I've been really swamped with responsibilities at work and at home lately, so it may take a while for me to formulate my replies.

One final note: I apologize in advance for the fact that my arguments will be offensive to some. It is not my intention to offend, but I believe in what I'm saying, and so I'm not going to pull any punches. In return, I expect nothing less from Autodidact or anyone else on the other side of this issue.


So, without further ado, here is the bulk of my exchange with Joeyknothead:


I wrote:

Other arrangements can be called "family" insofar are they bear some resemblance to the norm, but only recently have people wanted to "decenter" the norm.

Joey replied:

Who determines the "norm" and are they the same bunch who determines who ain't in the center of it?

I replied:

History does not record their names, but they would be the same people who also determined that food, clothing, and shelter would be a good idea.

Joey replied:

Does marriage feed folks? Does it clothe folks? Does it shelter folks?

No. Humans provide these things. Marriage is not required for a human to do any of the above.

I replied:

My point was that marriage is a natural arrangement that has existed since before the dawn of history, and probably for as long as there have been human beings like us. It was obvious to these ancestors of ours that they needed food, clothing and shelter to survive, and it was just as obvious that a situation in which men could have sex with whomever they wanted whenever they wanted without any responsibility was going to lead to a situation in which a) all women would be in danger of getting pregnant with children by men who would abandon them, b) a man would have no incentive to stay with any particular woman, c) that even if a man did have a liking for a particular woman, he would have no natural bond to her children, since they very well might not be his, d) many children would be raised fatherless, and e) as a result there would be chaos. You can actually see a pretty close approximation of this very situation in some areas of large cities today.

Stable society is a good thing. It really does help when it comes to feeding, clothing, and sheltering folks, not to mention protecting them from murder, theft, rape, etc.

To my point that

Men and women have sex,

Joey replied:

So do men and men, and women and women, and men and women and women, and men and goats, but I swear, it was just the once and we were both drunk.

I wrote:

I was talking about the kind of sex that is able to have direct consequences for social harmony. Your kind of sex might upset a few goatherds, and result in low self-esteem on the part of the goats.

To my point that:

sex leads to babies,

Joey replied:

Sometimes. Sometimes it doesn't.

I replied:

True enough, but I suspect you know what I mean. If you got pulled over for driving 100 miles an hour in a residential zone while drunk, I dont think youd get very far with the judge if you argued that such behavior doesnt always end in disaster. Some actions have predictable consequences that occur often enough to warrant broad statements about them.

To my point that:

and some stability must be imposed on this situation for the good of the women, the children, and society as a whole.

This is the reason that governments have always had an interest in sanctioning marriage.

Joey replied:

I propose what would be most "stable" is not oppressing our fellow human beings.

I replied:

I agree that oppression is bad. But again, you are accusing me of oppression without explaining yourself. Its not enough to keep repeating the charge. The fact that I oppose this novel idea that two men or two women have a right to be married does not make me an oppressor. What is oppressive is being accused of oppression by people who dont give any good reason for their opinion.

I dont see what possible interest the government could have in sanctioning the union between gays as marriage, just as I hardly see the point of heterosexual marriage as it is defined and practiced today. Thats why I wrote:

It is only recently that marriage has come to be viewed as Dating Plus, i.e. a relationship of indefinite duration that exists primarily for the emotional well-being of the adults involved, and can be called off at any time for any reason by either party. The kids? Oh, I'm sure they'll be fine with it.

Joey replied:

Are you the sole 'determinator' of what constitutes a valid marriage?

I replied:

Exactly the opposite. Marriage is a long-established social (not primarily religious or political) institution rooted in the nature of men and women; not just in their biological nature but in the way they are known to behave where sexual relations and child-rearing are concerned. For example, theres the saying that men play at love to get sex, and women play at sex to get love, and the fact that in the absence of any incentive, men are often reluctant to make any commitment to women, or to take responsibility for children, especially if they are not sure the children are actually theirs.

As I said, marriage is a social institution, in this case a contractual agreement that develops naturally in any community in response to certain undeniable facts about the way that men and women and children relate to one another. From the establishment of marriage it quickly and necessarily follows that there has to be some way of enforcing the contract, or at least providing strong incentives to abide by it. In a primitive society, this might take the form of an understanding that the male relatives of the bride will (ahem) diminish the grooms manhood if he abuses their daughter/sister/cousin, or runs off with another woman, or refuses to support the children. In a more developed society, there will be legal penalties for such behavior, and perhaps incentives to promote marriage, such as tax breaks. In any case, the point of government sanction of marriage between men and women has always been and should always remain the promotion of stable families which can produce good citizens, as well as provide for the legitimate desires of men and women for sex, companionship, and economic security.

A lot of societies, especially Christian societies, have seen marriage as in institution ordained and sanctioned by God (or the gods), and when we think of marriage in the Western world we usually form an image of the bride and groom walking down the aisle of a church. But marriage has been around a lot longer than Christianity, and in America, at least, it has long been possible to go down the courthouse and get hitched by the Justice of the Peace. My point in all of this is to dispel the notion that marriage was somehow invented by a group of politicians or priests. To borrow the saying attributed to Diderot, you could strangle the last king with the entrails of the last priest, and marriage would still survive. So would kings and priests, for that matter, and it wouldnt be long before they were in on the act.

But as I said earlier, our notion of marriage has degenerated to the point of being largely meaningless for the purpose of promoting and maintaining stable unions between men and women and protecting children from the effects of divorce. People have come to accept that marriage is largely about feelings, and maybe about getting your mom to stop making snide comments about shacking up. Im not knocking feelings, but contrary to The Captain and Tenille, love will NOT keep most people together for the long haul, at least not love defined as emotional attachment.

I read somewhere that the divorce rate is declining, which sounded like good news, but then I kept reading. It seems that fewer people are bothering to get married to begin with. Who can blame them? Everywhere they look, marriages are falling apart. The popularity of pre-nups is a pretty good indicator of how couples view their chances. No-fault divorce might sound like a good idea at first, but it greatly reduces the incentive to work things out that couples used to have. Im not suggesting that divorce should be outlawed. Not even the Catholic Church holds that position (Catholic belief is that a valid sacramental marriage ends only with the death of one spouse, but civil divorce is permitted in certain cases, like physical or emotional abuse, or one spouse running off with someone else). Im just saying that our current divorce laws reflect our anemic vision of what marriage is. Many couples still use wedding vows that say until death do us part, but ten years down the line, the husband discovers that his wife doesnt seem to understand him any more, but his secretary does, or the wife meets someone who fills her once more with the thrill of being alive, and pretty soon the rationalizing starts. People want to feel loved and respected, they want harmony, they want fulfillment in their relationships, but in even the best of marriages these things are going to be missing at least some of the time. As my uncle facetiously says Men and women are not compatible. Get over it. He and my aunt have been married for 55 years, because they have been able to accept the level of happiness and harmony that is possible between two people with very different but complementary natures.


Now to the big question, Why not let gays join the party?

1) Two homosexuals living together is not and never has been a social institution, i.e. it is not an arrangement that has any special implications for society. It involves no special duties toward society, and for that reason it has no special legal sanction or legal rights. At one point before I got married, I lived with another man in an apartment. The fact that we shared living quarters did not elevate the status of our relationship beyond friendship. Even if we had been in love and inclined to have sex together, in terms of our relationship to society it would not have changed the fact that we were just two men living together.

2) If sex between men and women never led to babies, the situation of a man and a woman living together would be the same as the two examples above as far as the interest that government would have in it. Society would never make a big deal out of it, and governments would have no more interest in promoting or regulating it than they would in the case of any other roommates. The nature and intensity of the feelings between two people, the sex they have (or dont have), the vacations they take together, and, in a word, all the shared aspects of their lives, are of great interest to the couple in question, but do not have any social ramifications that would cause the government to promote, sanction, or regulate such a relationship.

3) Some heterosexual couples cant have children, some choose not to have children, and gay sex never produces children (barring some cases involving surgery that I think I read about in the National Enquirer; who knows what may become possible through science). On the other hand, legitimate government interest in marriage is due to the fact that most marriages between men and women produce children, and the children need stable, nurturing families. So what about cases where a heterosexual couple cant have children, or choose not to? Should their unions be recognized as marriage by government? Yes, because a) it would involve intolerable government intrusion in order to ascertain the facts, b) sometimes couples change their minds and decide to have children after all, c) sometimes infertile couples find out that they arent actually infertile, and d) infertile couples can adopt.

4) So, why not let gay couples adopt? If you disagree with what Ive written so far, then believe me, THIS is the true impasse. What seems blindingly obvious to those who take my position may be totally denied by those who disagree, namely that the family situation which is has always been the norm among human beings is also the situation which is the best for children. What it takes for a boy to become a well-adjusted man, and what it takes for a girl to become a well-adjusted woman, is largely determined by socialization, and a child needs a father and a mother in his or her life in order to be properly socialized. Other arrangements have always existed due to necessity, such as when children are raised by a mother and grandmother, or a father and an uncle, but who would argue that such arrangements should be positively encouraged by government, enshrined in law as having a status equal to marriage? And yet this is exactly what the proponents of gay adoption argue for, with the added complication that the two men or two women have a sexual relationship with one another. This raises serious questions as to how the children will be affected. Will the parents try to raise the children as straight? How successful are they likely to be in this attempt? Or will they try to raise them as gay? This seems unlikely, since from what Ive heard, most gays would have found life much easier if they were attracted to the opposite sex. Will they allow the children to find their own way? In any case, is it fair to allow this sort of social experiment to be performed on children?


This post has gotten quite lengthy, so I'd better stop soon. But I hope that even those who disagree with me will find my position "qualitatively different" from that of people who scream "God hates f_gs!" at people mourning the death of a family member.

So, that's about as far as Joey and I got with the matter. I will now put up a separate post containing Autodidact's criticism of my argument, and my replies to each point.

[jmac2112]

My point was that marriage is a natural arrangement that has existed since before the dawn of history, and probably for as long as there have been human beings like us. It was obvious to these ancestors of ours that they needed food, clothing and shelter to survive, and it was just as obvious that a situation in which men could have sex with whomever they wanted whenever they wanted without any responsibility was going to lead to a situation in which a) all women would be in danger of getting pregnant with children by men who would abandon them, b) a man would have no incentive to stay with any particular woman, c) that even if a man did have a liking for a particular woman, he would have no natural bond to her children, since they very well might not be his, d) many children would be raised fatherless, and e) as a result there would be chaos. You can actually see a pretty close approximation of this very situation in some areas of large cities today.

This paragraph is just appalling. It is not anchored anywhere near reality. I will comment later but 30 seconds of critical thinking will dothe same thing. Without this , the idea is a non sequiter.

I find your disconnect from reality appalling. Feel free to take 30 seconds, maybe longer, to reflect on the matter. What is your theory of the origin of marriage?

[Autodidact]

well well well...sounds like an isn't/oughtn't argument to me.

points 1-5: isn't/oughtn't

Sounds like youve read a few pages of Hume. You cant get an ought from an is, but thats not how practical or moral reasoning works. All such arguments boil down to the assertion that good should be done, and evil avoided. If something can be shown to be good, then it follows that it ought to be done. If you believe that nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so, then I guess youre left with simply trying to impose your will on others. If you at least have the sensation that stable society is a good thing, then perhaps theres still hope.

Points 1-3 (including both 2s"oops) are partially assertion of fact. I find it useful to define what things are and are not before talking about them. There is an implicit argument that the people today who want to redefine marriage might want to tread lightly as they question the collective wisdom of humanity. Billions of people can still be wrong, and a few reformers introducing a novelty could be right, but thats hardly the way to bet.

And who are these abolitionists to experiment with getting rid of an institution that has existed throughout human history?

I find that my religious beliefs are in harmony with reason and fact.

Then you should be able to demonstrate that.

It helps if you start with facts. It sounds like your beliefs turn out to be in harmony with falsehoods.

[otseng]

Sounds like youve been deaf and blind for quite a while.

I find your disconnect from reality appalling.

Moderator Warning


These would be considered personal attacks and would be against the rules. Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[sickles]

My point was that marriage is a natural arrangement that has existed since before the dawn of history, and probably for as long as there have been human beings like us. It was obvious to these ancestors of ours that they needed food, clothing and shelter to survive, and it was just as obvious that a situation in which men could have sex with whomever they wanted whenever they wanted without any responsibility was going to lead to a situation in which a) all women would be in danger of getting pregnant with children by men who would abandon them, b) a man would have no incentive to stay with any particular woman, c) that even if a man did have a liking for a particular woman, he would have no natural bond to her children, since they very well might not be his, d) many children would be raised fatherless, and e) as a result there would be chaos. You can actually see a pretty close approximation of this very situation in some areas of large cities today.

I was taking issue with the part in bold. I was in a hurry and I apologize for the vagueness of my sloppy editing.

Ill make up for it by breakin it down.

it was just as obvious that a situation in which men could have sex with whomever they wanted whenever they wanted without any responsibility was going to lead to a situation

you have no proof other than your own society that this is how men would behave.

a) all women would be in danger of getting pregnant with children by men who would abandon them

Women would indeed be in danger of getting pregnant where sex is concerned. You have no proof that men would abandom women in this way , for this reason, and anymore than usual. Again, you look only at your own culture for inspiration.

b) a man would have no incentive to stay with any particular woman

This is nonsensical. A man having sex with a woman, usually indicates a bond already existant between them. Maybe if all men were scared of children, but we dont call those men. Those are boys. You assume an immoral world without 'marriage' in place.

c) that even if a man did have a liking for a particular woman, he would have no natural bond to her children, since they very well might not be his,

Again, you are saying that all women are sluts if marriage isnt involved. This seriously undervalues the human condition and the good in man and woman. A man is inclined to stay with a woman he has gotten pregnant. Hormones and the already existant bond see to that.

d) many children would be raised fatherless

Thats only if we accept the premise provided in a b and c. And I dont.

e) as a result there would be chaos.

same as D.

I hope I have explained my position with some clarity.

[Jester]

Moderator Warning

This paragraph is just appalling. It is not anchored anywhere near reality. I will comment later but 30 seconds of critical thinking will dothe same thing. Without this , the idea is a non sequiter.

This seems to be a one-liner post (and not a terribly civil one).
Please be sure to refrain from posting until such time as you can respond with content.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[jmac2112]

Autodidact wrote:

You made an affirmative statement. You said that children do better in heterosexual families than same-sex families. If you cannot support this statement with sound research, I would appreciate it if you would retract it. People should not irresponsibly spread vicious lies around the internet--don't you agree?

I do not appreciate the way my affirmative statement quickly became an instance of irresponsibly spread[ing] vicious lies around the internet.

As a side note, I do appreciate the fact that you (Autodidact) have maintained the level of civility that makes debate possible. The statement quoted above seem uncharacteristic of you.

I would also like to point out that the burden of proof does not rest (or at least should not rest) with the defense, which in this case is represented by the considered opinion of humanity throughout the ages. References to isolated same sex unions in various places at various times, mostly among the aristocracy, hardly contradicts this. And I, for one, would hardly bring up Nero as an example of anything praiseworthy.

And I never claimed that nobody in all of history ever enacted a ceremony that could be called a gay marriage, or that gays and lesbians never formed domestic partnerships. You can find instance of just about anything imaginable in the pages of recorded history if you look hard enough. What I would be interested in seeing is evidence of a society in which gay marriage was the law of the land.

For instance, you quote the following:

Still, the lack of legal validity notwithstanding, there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome.

which tells us nothing new, and does not invalidate my claim. Read Suetonius if you want to get an idea of every sexual practice that the Roman mind could think of (I myself was astounded at some of the charges leveled against Tiberius). Where is the evidence that any society had laws stating that all gay or lesbian unions must be officially recognized and recorded (if the parties so wished), and that such unions must be accorded the status and privileges of marriage?

But heres an interesting question: You are quoting isolated instances of deviation from the historical norm in an attempt to counter my assertion. Are you also quoting them to support your own view? If so, are you willing to accept references to the historical norm as supporting my view?

Autodidact wrote:

That's why the American Academy of Pediatrics supports equal rights for gay and lesbian families.

I did a little research, and came up with the following testimony given by Dr. Sharon Quick as an expert witness in a case in the Iowa District Court for Polk County:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007_docs/A ... report.pdf

Here are a few of the statements found in the document, referred to by article number:

Dr. Quick states that she is responding to errors in

A Technical Report (TR), published in 2002 in Pediatrics, the journal of the AAP, was used as evidence for a policy statement supporting the practice of same-sex co-parent adoptions. (article 6)
[The footnote for this statement refers to American Academy of Pediatrics, Perrin EC, Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. Technical report: coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. Pediatrics. 2002 Feb;109(2):341-344]

I have reviewed the TR, its obtainable references, and many works cited by those references. Over half(57 percent) of the references examined in the TR are inaccurately quoted. (article 7)

To illustrate how these various types of errors and flaws intertwine, consider this example of problematic reporting by the authors of the TR. The TR states that lesbian mothers have been shown to be more concerned with providing male role models for their children than are divorced heterosexual mothers. Harris and Turner and Kirkpatrick et al are cited. However, Harris and Turner actually stated the opposite finding; this would be classified as a quotation error. There are significant design flaws in Harris et als study. The volunteer nonprobability sample was exceedingly small for meaningful comparisons, was recruited by various means, and lacked a group of married parents for comparison. Harris and Turner admit that the high proportion of gay subjects who were willing to be interviewed suggests that they were perhaps unusually interested in the issues and may have been particularly biased toward emphasizing the positive aspects of their relationships with their children. The subjects self-identified as to their sexual orientation; without more precisely defining the classification of subjects, there can be a great deal of heterogeneity within the sub-groups. One of the parents is said to have identified as bisexual, but it is not clear whether this individual was placed in the gay or lesbian group. With such small sub-groups, it does not appear that matching or controlling for extraneous variables was performed. The majority of subjects were Anglos and highly educated. Extrapolation to the general population would be invalid. Data were obtained from mailed questionnaires that appear to be constructed by the authors without any reliability data. Given the multiple design flaws, no conclusions can be drawn from this study. Harris and Turner, in fact, advocate caution in accepting their findings at face value. (article 22)

In OConnells study, young adult children of divorced lesbian mothers were enrolled by word of mouth and ads; in nine out of eleven cases, the initial contact was made by the mothers whose children were then contacted. Presumably, mothers who have better relationships with their children would suggest they become involved in a study, contributing to a self-selection bias. The author notes that informants seemed reticent in speaking of difficulties and in fact several subjects expressed their wish to clarify possible misconceptions about the difficulties, emphasizing both their love and respect for their mothers. Without exception, each subject heartfeltly stated the wish that anyone reading this study should know that having a lesbian mother was a positive experience. The author states that the majority wished they had had a less complicated adolescence, and they reported feelings of anger, disappointment, and resentment. She notes that all subjects ameliorated their negative expressions with a disclaimer such as, ...but it was not really a problem. (article 33, section b)

And there's lot's more. If Dr. Quicks analysis of the AAPs Technical Report has been refuted, please show me where. I really do want to know.

Autodidact wrote:

Are you suggesting that gay and lesbian people be prohibited from bearing children until you feel comfortable that we can be adequate parents?

Bearing children? Depends on how. I mentioned one possibility in which a woman might conceive within a marriage, then divorce her husband. Im very much against abortion, as you might imagine, so no, I would prohibit such a woman from bearing the child.

My problem is with the raising of children within gay or lesbian households, particularly if the child is not the natural child of one partner. I have seen studies showing a much greater incidence of abuse by stepfathers than biological fathers. I see this danger multiplied in a case where two gay men adopt a child unrelated to either. And I fail to see how a child could not be negatively affected by the knowledge that his or her father is an anonymous sperm donor, or that his or her mother is a surrogate hired to do the job and then disappear.

There are studies showing the importance of having both a mother and a father, and how the lack of either affects a child adversely. I am absolutely sure that you could find studies denying the assertions I have made in this paragraph, and I am equally sure that I could find even more studies affirming my assertions. Must it come to that?

I did look around for other articles or books, and found such things as My Genes Made Me Do It!"Homosexuality and the Scientific Evidence, written by Dr. Neil Whitehead and his wife Briar. You can access it at
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm

You can find the following quote if you download Chapter 2 and go to pp. 53-54:

Urbanisation strongly influences SSA development

The large Laumann Chicago study asked where people had been brought up during ages 14 to 16 and whether they had any male homosexual partners during the last year. The percentages depended on the degree of urbanization; 1.2%of the males surveyed who had been raised in rural areas reported having homosexual partners during the last year; 2.5%who had been raised in medium sized towns reported having homosexual partners, and 4.4%who had been raised in large cities reported being active homosexuals/bisexuals (Figure 19). For women, the percentages were 0.7%, 1.3% and 1.6%, respectively. In other words, where you were brought up is quite an important factor in whether you end up having homosexual partners. For the sake of argument (Figure 20) let us imagine that the incidence of male homosexuality in rural areas (1.2%) is all due to genetic influence. If that were the case, geneticists would also expect 1.2%of the male population brought up in big cities to have a genetically based homosexuality, meaning that the homosexuality of the balance (3.2%) [4.4 minus 1.2] would be exclusively due to social factors. This means that the environmental factor (3.2%) is far more important than the alleged genetic factor (1.2%). For women the environmental factor (0.9% [1.6% minus 0.7%], is slightly more important than the supposed genetic influence (0.7%).

Im sure you can cite studies to the contrary. But if the above conclusions are correct, however, it seems plausible that a gay family would be the sort of environment where homosexuality might be fostered, even though the parents have no such intention.

As you are aware, it is hard do a large scale, serious study of the actual effects of gay and lesbian parenting, since a) the people who are studied are often self-selected volunteers, or cherry-picked by the researchers, b) this is a very recent phenomenon, and c) the researchers often have an axe to grind.

There are other studies purporting to show the influence of environment in the development of same-sex attraction, but I dont have access to them via the computer.

Autodidact wrote:

Research has been going on since the 1970's. The U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS), began in 1986. These children are now in their teens and 20's. Here's the conclusion:

The [National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study] adolescents are well-adjusted, demonstrating more competencies and fewer behavioral problems than their peers in the normative American population.

Well, Im sure youre aware of this, and I know that NARTH is looked upon with contempt by gays and lesbians, but here is their critique of the study you quoted:

http://www.narth.com/docs/makesclaims.html

Are there counter-arguments to be found? Id like to see them.

So, in the end, no, I am not ready to retract my statements based on research that appears to be flawed and heavily biased. I am out of time for the moment, but Im sure the conversation will continue.

[Flail]

jmac2112 wrote:

My problem is with the raising of children within gay or lesbian households, particularly if the child is not the natural child of one partner. I have seen studies showing a much greater incidence of abuse by stepfathers than biological fathers.

So are you for passing laws to prohibit divorced or widowed mothers from remarrying?

jmac2112 wrote:

I see this danger multiplied in a case where two gay men adopt a child unrelated to either. And I fail to see how a child could not be negatively affected by the knowledge that his or her father is an anonymous sperm donor, or that his or her mother is a surrogate hired to do the job and then disappear.

Apparently you would not recommend anyone adopting children from an orphanage since such children would likely be 'defective' in some way.

jmac22112 wrote:

But if the above conclusions are correct, however, it seems plausible that a gay family would be the sort of environment where homosexuality might be fostered, even though the parents have no such intention.

So you think homosexuality is something we should take measure to stamp out of existence, like a disease that can be passed from one person to another?

Since homosexuality is not the norm in human beings, it seems disingenuous to me that you paint with so broad a brush from such limited samples and obviously bias research. We do have an entire human history however replete with the ravages put upon families and children by and within heterosexual relationships by vile, depraved and seriously flawed heterosexual parents. Despite such history, little it seems has been or is being done to prevent the mating and birthing by such individuals, so perhaps your time would be better spent in the much more fertile field of flawed heterosexual relationships and their effects upon innocent children.

Human nature, stupidity and human beings in general are the source of our problems in society, not unmatched body parts or the particular manner in which free people explore and express their passion and affection for one another. I am wondering what life experiences may have led you down the path toward your judgmental nature.

[Autodidact]

Autodidact wrote:

You made an affirmative statement. You said that children do better in heterosexual families than same-sex families. If you cannot support this statement with sound research, I would appreciate it if you would retract it. People should not irresponsibly spread vicious lies around the internet--don't you agree?

I do not appreciate the way my affirmative statement quickly became an instance of irresponsibly spread[ing] vicious lies around the internet.

Me neither. Please stop doing it. Your statement was false. It is defamatory. It is about an entire group of people, a group of which you know almost nothing. It is on the internet. You took not the slightest effort to find out the truth of the matter, demonstrating a lack of responsibility.

If it would help you learn more about the facts, I will be happy to supply you with the results of the ample research that clearly demonstrates your claim to be false, as well as the resulting statements from every establishment child welfare organization in the country supporting gay parenting, gay adoption and gay marriage.

Yes, you might have suspected--I am a member of this group. I am a lesbian and a mother of three children, one of whom is grown. My youngest child was adopted because the careless heterosexuals who brought her into this world were not able to provide her with the care she needs. Like the many lesbian parents I know, I am doing a damn good job of raising my children, and therefore do not appreciate the people who spread lies about us around the planet, so I would appreciate it if you refrained from doing so.

btw, my oldest child, about to turn 23, is one of the finest human beings on the planet, in case you're wondering.

As a side note, I do appreciate the fact that you (Autodidact) have maintained the level of civility that makes debate possible. The statement quoted above seem uncharacteristic of you.

I would also like to point out that the burden of proof does not rest (or at least should not rest) with the defense, which in this case is represented by the considered opinion of humanity throughout the ages. References to isolated same sex unions in various places at various times, mostly among the aristocracy, hardly contradicts this. And I, for one, would hardly bring up Nero as an example of anything praiseworthy.

And I never claimed that nobody in all of history ever enacted a ceremony that could be called a gay marriage, or that gays and lesbians never formed domestic partnerships. You can find instance of just about anything imaginable in the pages of recorded history if you look hard enough. What I would be interested in seeing is evidence of a society in which gay marriage was the law of the land.

For instance, you quote the following:

Still, the lack of legal validity notwithstanding, there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome.

which tells us nothing new, and does not invalidate my claim. Read Suetonius if you want to get an idea of every sexual practice that the Roman mind could think of (I myself was astounded at some of the charges leveled against Tiberius). Where is the evidence that any society had laws stating that all gay or lesbian unions must be officially recognized and recorded (if the parties so wished), and that such unions must be accorded the status and privileges of marriage?

But heres an interesting question: You are quoting isolated instances of deviation from the historical norm in an attempt to counter my assertion. Are you also quoting them to support your own view? If so, are you willing to accept references to the historical norm as supporting my view?

It is a fact that same-sex marriages have been practiced in other times and places. Therefore your statement was false.

I don't put much credence in the argument from what we've always done, however, otherwise we would never make any moral progress, and would still be living with fuedalism and slavery.

Autodidact wrote:

That's why the American Academy of Pediatrics supports equal rights for gay and lesbian families.

I did a little research, and came up with the following testimony given by Dr. Sharon Quick as an expert witness in a case in the Iowa District Court for Polk County:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007_docs/A ... report.pdf

Here are a few of the statements found in the document, referred to by article number:

Dr. Quick states that she is responding to errors in

A Technical Report (TR), published in 2002 in Pediatrics, the journal of the AAP, was used as evidence for a policy statement supporting the practice of same-sex co-parent adoptions. (article 6)
[The footnote for this statement refers to American Academy of Pediatrics, Perrin EC, Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. Technical report: coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. Pediatrics. 2002 Feb;109(2):341-344]

I have reviewed the TR, its obtainable references, and many works cited by those references. Over half(57 percent) of the references examined in the TR are inaccurately quoted. (article 7)

To illustrate how these various types of errors and flaws intertwine, consider this example of problematic reporting by the authors of the TR. The TR states that lesbian mothers have been shown to be more concerned with providing male role models for their children than are divorced heterosexual mothers. Harris and Turner and Kirkpatrick et al are cited. However, Harris and Turner actually stated the opposite finding; this would be classified as a quotation error. There are significant design flaws in Harris et als study. The volunteer nonprobability sample was exceedingly small for meaningful comparisons, was recruited by various means, and lacked a group of married parents for comparison. Harris and Turner admit that the high proportion of gay subjects who were willing to be interviewed suggests that they were perhaps unusually interested in the issues and may have been particularly biased toward emphasizing the positive aspects of their relationships with their children. The subjects self-identified as to their sexual orientation; without more precisely defining the classification of subjects, there can be a great deal of heterogeneity within the sub-groups. One of the parents is said to have identified as bisexual, but it is not clear whether this individual was placed in the gay or lesbian group. With such small sub-groups, it does not appear that matching or controlling for extraneous variables was performed. The majority of subjects were Anglos and highly educated. Extrapolation to the general population would be invalid. Data were obtained from mailed questionnaires that appear to be constructed by the authors without any reliability data. Given the multiple design flaws, no conclusions can be drawn from this study. Harris and Turner, in fact, advocate caution in accepting their findings at face value. (article 22)

In OConnells study, young adult children of divorced lesbian mothers were enrolled by word of mouth and ads; in nine out of eleven cases, the initial contact was made by the mothers whose children were then contacted. Presumably, mothers who have better relationships with their children would suggest they become involved in a study, contributing to a self-selection bias. The author notes that informants seemed reticent in speaking of difficulties and in fact several subjects expressed their wish to clarify possible misconceptions about the difficulties, emphasizing both their love and respect for their mothers. Without exception, each subject heartfeltly stated the wish that anyone reading this study should know that having a lesbian mother was a positive experience. The author states that the majority wished they had had a less complicated adolescence, and they reported feelings of anger, disappointment, and resentment. She notes that all subjects ameliorated their negative expressions with a disclaimer such as, ...but it was not really a problem. (article 33, section b)

And there's lot's more. If Dr. Quicks analysis of the AAPs Technical Report has been refuted, please show me where. I really do want to know.

So I gather you don't have an iota of evidence in support of your bogus claim?

Autodidact wrote:

Are you suggesting that gay and lesbian people be prohibited from bearing children until you feel comfortable that we can be adequate parents?

Bearing children? Depends on how. I mentioned one possibility in which a woman might conceive within a marriage, then divorce her husband. Im very much against abortion, as you might imagine, so no, I would prohibit such a woman from bearing the child.

My problem is with the raising of children within gay or lesbian households, particularly if the child is not the natural child of one partner. I have seen studies showing a much greater incidence of abuse by stepfathers than biological fathers. I see this danger multiplied in a case where two gay men adopt a child unrelated to either. And I fail to see how a child could not be negatively affected by the knowledge that his or her father is an anonymous sperm donor, or that his or her mother is a surrogate hired to do the job and then disappear.

Do you have a shred of evidence to support any of your bigoted assumptions?

There are studies showing the importance of having both a mother and a father, and how the lack of either affects a child adversely. I am absolutely sure that you could find studies denying the assertions I have made in this paragraph, and I am equally sure that I could find even more studies affirming my assertions. Must it come to that?

There are no studies that find that children of intact, two-parent same-sex families do any worse than children of intact, two-parent heterosexual families. You can't find them because they don't exist, because they don't. It's not true.

Why, when trying to find out about same-sex families, would you rely on research about divorced heterosexuals? Because the actual research, which is extensive, on same-sex families proves conclusively that your claim is false.

I did look around for other articles or books, and found such things as My Genes Made Me Do It!"Homosexuality and the Scientific Evidence, written by

Dr. Neil Whitehead and his wife Briar. You can access it at
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm

You can find the following quote if you download Chapter 2 and go to pp. 53-54:

Urbanisation strongly influences SSA development

The large Laumann Chicago study asked where people had been brought up during ages 14 to 16 and whether they had any male homosexual partners during the last year. The percentages depended on the degree of urbanization; 1.2%of the males surveyed who had been raised in rural areas reported having homosexual partners during the last year; 2.5%who had been raised in medium sized towns reported having homosexual partners, and 4.4%who had been raised in large cities reported being active homosexuals/bisexuals (Figure 19). For women, the percentages were 0.7%, 1.3% and 1.6%, respectively. In other words, where you were brought up is quite an important factor in whether you end up having homosexual partners. For the sake of argument (Figure 20) let us imagine that the incidence of male homosexuality in rural areas (1.2%) is all due to genetic influence. If that were the case, geneticists would also expect 1.2%of the male population brought up in big cities to have a genetically based homosexuality, meaning that the homosexuality of the balance (3.2%) [4.4 minus 1.2] would be exclusively due to social factors. This means that the environmental factor (3.2%) is far more important than the alleged genetic factor (1.2%). For women the environmental factor (0.9% [1.6% minus 0.7%], is slightly more important than the supposed genetic influence (0.7%).

What on earth is your point, and what does it have to do with same-sex parenting? Can't you find something remotely relevant to the discussion to support your slander? Oh, I guess not.

Im sure you can cite studies to the contrary. But if the above conclusions are correct, however, it seems plausible that a gay family would be the sort of environment where homosexuality might be fostered, even though the parents have no such intention.

Two things: (1) There has been extensive research on the question of whether children of same-sex families grow up to be gay more often than in the general population. They don't. (2) Since there is nothing wrong with being gay, it would make no difference if they did. But they don't. Yes, I can cite the hundreds of studies that support my claim.

As you are aware, it is hard do a large scale, serious study of the actual effects of gay and lesbian parenting, since a) the people who are studied are often self-selected volunteers, or cherry-picked by the researchers, b) this is a very recent phenomenon, and c) the researchers often have an axe to grind.

Nevertheless, all the studies that have been done support what I am saying. Somehow, not one of them supports yours. Yet I suspect you will not change your mind. If so, that clearly shows your views are not based on the facts. What are they based on?

Autodidact wrote:

Research has been going on since the 1970's. The U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS), began in 1986. These children are now in their teens and 20's. Here's the conclusion:

The [National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study] adolescents are well-adjusted, demonstrating more competencies and fewer behavioral problems than their peers in the normative American population.

Well, Im sure youre aware of this, and I know that NARTH is looked upon with contempt by gays and lesbians, but here is their critique of the study you quoted

: NARTH is looked on with contempt by every mainstream social science and psychological organization. They are a bunch of liars and bigots, and nothing more. Why would you go to them, unless you were interested in lies and bigotry?

http://www.narth.com/docs/makesclaims.html

I don't do argument by link. If you have an argument to make, have the courage and show the effort to make it.

Are there counter-arguments to be found? Id like to see them.

So, in the end, no, I am not ready to retract my statements based on research that appears to be flawed and heavily biased. I am out of time for the moment, but Im sure the conversation will continue.

I see. Your refusal to accept the facts, the results of hundreds of well-conducted research studies, and your penchant for clinging to myths based on nothing but sheer prejudice is noted.

I note, and most important, you cannot produce a single study, a single piece of evidence, to show that your claim is true. I have produced hundreds of studies to show that it's false. Yet you cling to it. What do you call that, jmac?

[jmac2112]

jmac2112 wrote:

My problem is with the raising of children within gay or lesbian households, particularly if the child is not the natural child of one partner. I have seen studies showing a much greater incidence of abuse by stepfathers than biological fathers.

So are you for passing laws to prohibit divorced or widowed mothers from remarrying?

No.

jmac2112 wrote:

I see this danger multiplied in a case where two gay men adopt a child unrelated to either. And I fail to see how a child could not be negatively affected by the knowledge that his or her father is an anonymous sperm donor, or that his or her mother is a surrogate hired to do the job and then disappear.

Apparently you would not recommend anyone adopting children from an orphanage since such children would likely be 'defective' in some way.

In the first case, the likelihood of abuse by a stepfather would be twice what you would find in the case of a heterosexual couple adopting. Think about the math.

Adoption is what we do when the biological parents are unwilling or unable to raise the child. It's not the best situation, just the next best. Adopted children often have insecurities related to the fact that their biological parents gave them up, but they can usually grasp why the parents did so. They realize that their biological parents may have been unfortunate and/or irresponsible, but at least they didn't intend to do something that would result in psychological distress for them. As a matter of fact, the parents weren't even thinking about the child at all. That fact alone can lead to resentment.

In cases involving sperm donors or surrogate mothers, some gays and lesbians have gone out of their way to bring the child into existence using artificial methods, and have done so precisely because they do not wish to involve a person of the opposite sex in their family life (only that person's bodily fluid or womb). That person may still be out there, unknown by the child. That plus the knowledge that the he or she was brought into a very different sort of family on purpose through some sort of contract involving obtaining the sperm of or using the body of a third party has got to be very weird for him or her. I don't understand why a lot of people find this concept far-fetched.

jmac22112 wrote:

But if the above conclusions are correct, however, it seems plausible that a gay family would be the sort of environment where homosexuality might be fostered, even though the parents have no such intention.

So you think homosexuality is something we should take measure to stamp out of existence, like a disease that can be passed from one person to another?

I know that a lot of gays and lesbians want to say that their family life has no influence on whether or not their children turn out gay. The evidence I provided indicates that such an assertion rests on shaky ground. Environment seems to be a much greater factor than some people would like to think.

Since homosexuality is not the norm in human beings, it seems disingenuous to me that you paint with so broad a brush from such limited samples and obviously bias research.

Is this question directed to me? If so, you'll have to explain yourself more fully. I offered Autodidact evidence that her sources might be disingenuous, biased, and painting with a broad brush based on evidence from limited samples.

We do have an entire human history however replete with the ravages put upon families and children by and within heterosexual relationships by vile, depraved and seriously flawed heterosexual parents. Despite such history, little it seems has been or is being done to prevent the mating and birthing by such individuals, so perhaps your time would be better spent in the much more fertile field of flawed heterosexual relationships and their effects upon innocent children.

I'll do what I can. I hope you'll join me in the effort. Now, explain to me what this has to do with whether or not gay/lesbian adoption is a good idea.

Human nature, stupidity and human beings in general are the source of our problems in society, not unmatched body parts or the particular manner in which free people explore and express their passion and affection for one another. I am wondering what life experiences may have led you down the path toward your judgmental nature.

Assuming that your position is correct, you might well wonder such a thing. I don't accept your premises, however. I do wonder how you can appeal to "human nature" in one breath, and in the very next imply that it is unclear how our sexual organs are to be used. And is our innate "stupidity" ever implicated in disasters involving "the particular manner in which free people explore and express their passion and affection for one another"? You seem to be implying that no one can ever make a mistake in that area of human life, or that such a mistake can ever result in harm. Could you explain your statement more clearly?

[Autodidact]

I see this danger multiplied in a case where two gay men adopt a child unrelated to either. And I fail to see how a child could not be negatively affected by the knowledge that his or her father is an anonymous sperm donor, or that his or her mother is a surrogate hired to do the job and then disappear.

Apparently you would not recommend anyone adopting children from an orphanage since such children would likely be 'defective' in some way.

In the first case, the likelihood of abuse by a stepfather would be twice what you would find in the case of a heterosexual couple adopting. Think about the math.

Do you have an iota of evidence to support your implication that gay fathers abuse their children, or are you just spreading bigotry around the internet?

Adoption is what we do when the biological parents are unwilling or unable to raise the child. It's not the best situation, just the next best. Adopted children often have insecurities related to the fact that their biological parents gave them up, but they can usually grasp why the parents did so. They realize that their biological parents may have been unfortunate and/or irresponsible, but at least they didn't intend to do something that would result in psychological distress for them. As a matter of fact, the parents weren't even thinking about the child at all. That fact alone can lead to resentment.

So true, Clearly, heterosexuality is a negative force, and should probably be prohibited, or at least strongly discouraged.

It's a good thing there are responsible people around, many of them gay and lesbian, to take care of the children born to parents who weren't thinking about them at all.

In cases involving sperm donors or surrogate mothers, some gays and lesbians have gone out of their way to bring the child into existence using artificial methods, and have done so precisely because they do not wish to involve a person of the opposite sex in their family life (only that person's bodily fluid or womb). That person may still be out there, unknown by the child. That plus the knowledge that the he or she was brought into a very different sort of family on purpose through some sort of contract involving obtaining the sperm of or using the body of a third party has got to be very weird for him or her. I don't understand why a lot of people find this concept far-fetched.

Why don't we ask them? Oh wait, we did. And what did we find? They are doing quite well, thank you very much.

jmac22112 wrote:

But if the above conclusions are correct, however, it seems plausible that a gay family would be the sort of environment where homosexuality might be fostered, even though the parents have no such intention.

So you think homosexuality is something we should take measure to stamp out of existence, like a disease that can be passed from one person to another?

I know that a lot of gays and lesbians want to say that their family life has no influence on whether or not their children turn out gay. The evidence I provided indicates that such an assertion rests on shaky ground. Environment seems to be a much greater factor than some people would like to think.

No, it doesn't. Yes, environment matters. Fortunately, gay and lesbian parents provide an excellent environment, which is why their children do so well.

Since homosexuality is not the norm in human beings, it seems disingenuous to me that you paint with so broad a brush from such limited samples and obviously bias research.

Is this question directed to me? If so, you'll have to explain yourself more fully. I offered Autodidact evidence that her sources might be disingenuous, biased, and painting with a broad brush based on evidence from limited samples.

Actually, all you offered is bigoted lies from a hate group that has been discredited by every reputable discipline.

We do have an entire human history however replete with the ravages put upon families and children by and within heterosexual relationships by vile, depraved and seriously flawed heterosexual parents. Despite such history, little it seems has been or is being done to prevent the mating and birthing by such individuals, so perhaps your time would be better spent in the much more fertile field of flawed heterosexual relationships and their effects upon innocent children.

I'll do what I can. I hope you'll join me in the effort. Now, explain to me what this has to do with whether or not gay/lesbian adoption is a good idea.

Human nature, stupidity and human beings in general are the source of our problems in society, not unmatched body parts or the particular manner in which free people explore and express their passion and affection for one another. I am wondering what life experiences may have led you down the path toward your judgmental nature.

Assuming that your position is correct, you might well wonder such a thing. I don't accept your premises, however. I do wonder how you can appeal to "human nature" in one breath, and in the very next imply that it is unclear how our sexual organs are to be used. And is our innate "stupidity" ever implicated in disasters involving "the particular manner in which free people explore and express their passion and affection for one another"? You seem to be implying that no one can ever make a mistake in that area of human life, or that such a mistake can ever result in harm. Could you explain your statement more clearly?

Our sexual organs are to be used in any way deemed beneficial to the individual possessing them, their partners, and society at large.

So, any interest in the position statements of every major child welfare organization in the country, or would you rather stick to propaganda from known bigots and hate groups?