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.

[JoeyKnothead]

So, jmac, other than your own prejudices assumptions, have you found any evidence to support them yet? Say, a study with what you see as sound methodology that shows that children of lesbian moms and gay dads in some way turn out worse than those in heterosexual families?

I propose that unless such studies included the discrimination and harassment against children of homosexuals, conclusions'd be kinda spotty at best.

It's rather well understood that one who is harassed or otherwise abused may have lasting psychological damage that results in later negative actions.

[Autodidact]

So, jmac, other than your own prejudices assumptions, have you found any evidence to support them yet? Say, a study with what you see as sound methodology that shows that children of lesbian moms and gay dads in some way turn out worse than those in heterosexual families?

I propose that unless such studies included the discrimination and harassment against children of homosexuals, conclusions'd be kinda spotty at best.

It's rather well understood that one who is harassed or otherwise abused may have lasting psychological damage that results in later negative actions.

If you read the studies that have been done, they talk about this factor in children's lives and how the families deal with it. It may be for this reason that children of gay and lesbian families tend to be more tolerant and open to difference; they've been on the other side.

I will say that I raised my 3 kids in a gay-friendly large city and we get very little of this.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 72:

I propose that unless such studies included the discrimination and harassment against children of homosexuals, conclusions'd be kinda spotty at best.

It's rather well understood that one who is harassed or otherwise abused may have lasting psychological damage that results in later negative actions.

If you read the studies that have been done, they talk about this factor in children's lives and how the families deal with it. It may be for this reason that children of gay and lesbian families tend to be more tolerant and open to difference; they've been on the other side.

Though I don't think I'm being asked to, I'd retract any notion on my part that implies at least some studies didn't include such factors.

Given that a good many folks are adamantly opposed to homosexuality, then turn out to be engaging in a good bit of it themselves, I'd even wonder if such may influence these results. Do these studies confirm that at least some of the heterosexuals involved ain't playing for both sides, and take such into account?

Personally, I've yet to find any real and tangible link between one's sexuality and their ability to raise a good kid. Look at me, I'm about the least responsible, goofiest parent in the history of the planet, and my boy's a Model American. Does my being a heterosexual have anything to do with this? Considering that me and his mom did such a lousy job would indicate that parenting may even have little to do with it.

I contend these studies are only worthwhile to those who seek to present a negative view of homosexuals as parents. They fail to consider that the vast majority of the really rottenest of us come from heterosexual families. They fail to consider that even if one has lousy parents - not gay or not - they can still turn out to be great folks, if given a modicum of a chance.

Anyway, judging parents by how their kids turn out is akin to blaming folks for the sins of Adam. What if I do everything right and my kid still turns out to be Satan himself? Am I now to blame?

I will say that I raised my 3 kids in a gay-friendly large city and we get very little of this.

As it should be.

'Cept for raisin' 'em in the big city, you need gettin' onto 'bout that

[jmac2112]

Autodidact brought to my attention the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family
Study, and I've been looking into it as time permits. I ran across an article by Nanette K. Gartrell, Henny M. W. Bos, and Naomi G. Goldberg that is part of this study, published last year. It is titled "Adolescents of the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Sexual Orientation, Sexual Behavior, and Sexual Risk Exposure", and you can access it at:

http://www.nllfs.org/images/uploads/pdf ... y-2010.pdf

or if you don't have the latest and greatest Adobe Acrobat Reader, you can view it in HTML here:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k=U ... mily+Study


Here's the abstract:

This study assessed Kinsey self-ratings and lifetime sexual experiences of 17-year-olds whose lesbian mothers enrolled before these offspring were born in the longest-running, prospective study of same-sex parented families, with a 93% retention rate to date. Data for the current report were gathered through online questionnaires completed by 78 adolescent offspring (39 girls and 39 boys). The adolescents were asked if they had ever been abused and, if so, to specify by whom and the type of abuse (verbal, emotional, physical, or sexual). They were also asked to specify their sexual identity on the Kinsey scale, between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual. Lifetime sexual behavior was assessed through questions about heterosexual and same-sex contact, age of first sexual experience, contraception use, and pregnancy. The results revealed that there were no reports of physical or sexual victimization by a parent or other caregiver. Regarding sexual orientation, 18.9% of the adolescent girls and 2.7% of the adolescent boys self-rated in the bisexual spectrum, and 0% of girls and 5.4% of boys self-rated as predominantly-to-exclusively homosexual. When compared with age- and gender-matched adolescents of the National Survey of Family Growth, the study offspring were significantly older at the time of their first heterosexual contact, and the daughters of lesbian mothers were significantly more likely to have had same-sex contact. These findings suggest that adolescents reared in lesbian families are less likely than their peers to be victimized by a parent or other caregiver, and that daughters of lesbian mothers are more likely to engage in same-sex behavior and to identify as bisexual.

The two things that stand out for me are the two things that stood out for
the researchers:

First, it is certainly good to hear that "adolescents reared in lesbian
families are less likely than their peers to be victimized by a parent or other caregiver." In the "Discussion" section of the article, the researchers note:

One possible explanation for the discrepancy between the NLLFS adolescents'
reports regarding abuse and the NATSCEV victimization data might be that
most of the NLLFS adolescents grew up in households in which no adult males
resided. Since the sexual abuse of children that occurs within the home is
largely perpetrated by adult heterosexual males (Balsam et al., 2005;
Turner, Finkelhor, & Ormrod, 2007; Peter, 2009; Putnam,2003; Shusterman,
Fluke, McDonald, & Associates, 2005; Zink, Klesges, Stevens, & Decker,
2009), growing up in lesbian-headed households may protect children and
adolescents from these types of assault. In addition, corporal punishment
is less commonly used by lesbian mothers as a disciplinary measure than by
heterosexual fathers (Gartrell et al., 1999, 2000, 2005, 2006; Golombok et
al., 2003). Research has shown an association between corporal punishment
and other types of abuse (Gershoff, 2002; Sunday et al., 2008; Zolotor,
Theodore, Chang, Berkoff, & Runyan, 2008). Because this is the first study
to document lifetime parent/caregiver abuse through the self-reports of
adolescents in planned lesbian families, it will be interesting to see
whether future studies of same-sex parented families yield similar results.

Now, I think that only the most un-scientific of minds would pass this by without forming the obvious hypothesis, namely that children who are reared in households headed by two men are probably more likely to be physically or sexually abused than children raised in families headed by a man and a woman. Indeed, this hypothesis is clearly in the researchers' minds, although they don't come right out and say it. It seems that very little research has been done on child-rearing by gay men. Wouldn't we want to know more about that before making blanket statements in favor of such broad concepts as "adoption by same-sex couples" or lesbigay parenting?

I wrote things earlier in this thread suggesting that this is a hypothesis
worth exploring. I got responses such as this on from Flail (post 47)

Quote (from me):

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?

Or this one from Autodidact (post 50)

Quote (from me):

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?

Why is it that the mere suggestion of following up on an obvious hypothesis elicits such a strong negative reaction? Flail misses the point (I stipulated that the child was not the natural child of either father, so therefore both men would be in a "stepfather" relation to the child), but is clearly upset. Autodidact demands evidence before she will even allow the hypothesis to be stated, and calls me a bigot for suggesting such a thing. Are some people afraid of what might be found if such a study were conducted? And how would any of us have an iota of evidence of the sort Autodidact demands unless such a prospective longitudinal study were performed? Unless, of course, we went with our common sense knowledge that men are more prone to violence than women. The findings of the NLLFS bear out the common sense suspicion that a household headed by two women would result in less violence on average than that found in heterosexual families. So again, what is the source of the vehement opposition to exploring the corollary of this finding?

The second thing that stood out is the finding that:

Regarding sexual orientation, 18.9% of the adolescent girls and 2.7% of the
adolescent boys self-rated in the bisexual spectrum, and 0% of girls and
5.4% of boys self-rated as predominantly-to-exclusively homosexual. When
compared with age- and gender-matched adolescents of the National Survey of
Family Growth, the study offspring were significantly older at the time of
their first heterosexual contact, and the daughters of lesbian mothers were
significantly more likely to have had same-sex contact.

So, if approximately 1/5 of the girls in this study have had sexual contact
with another female by the age of 17, what does this mean? Is this due to
the fact that all of these girls were the biological children of lesbians?
Did environment play a part? What is the relationship between having sexual
contact with other girls at a young age and identifying as lesbian later in
life?

As the authors of the report say:

Research has documented considerable fluidity in the development and
expression of sexual orientation, particularly among young women (Diamond,
2005, 2007; Diamond & Butterworth, 2008). In a 10-year study of
nonheterosexual women between the ages of 16 and 23, Diamond (2007) asked
women how they identified in terms of their sexual orientation, including
the terms "lesbian," "bisexual," "unlabeled," or "heterosexual." Diamond
found over the course of 10 years, two-thirds of women had changed their
identity label at least once, and one-quarter had changed their identity
label more than once. The next NLLFS follow-up-at T6, when the offspring are
25 years old-will assess the stability of their sexual behavior and
orientation over time.

It will be interesting to see what they find out. Perhaps the study will continue to follow them in their later sexual relationships, marriages (or decisions not to marry), and child rearing (or decisions not to have children).

Regarding the strengths and weakness of the NLFFS, the article says:

A strength of the NLLFS is that it is a prospective study, so the findings are not skewed by overrepresentation of families who volunteer when it is already clear that their offspring are functioning well. In addition, the dropout rate was very small. In most cases, the families that withdrew did so when the index children were less than 5 years old (Gartrell & Bos, 2010; Gartrell et al., 2000, 2006). Also, the T5 data were gathered through confidential adolescent self-reports, thereby increasing the likelihood of candid responses on sensitive topics, such as sexuality and victimization. Because the NLLFS is an ongoing longitudinal study, it is possible to assess consistency in behavior at different time intervals. In the current investigation, adolescents were only asked to provide information about their sexual identity on the Kinsey scale. At T6, the offspring will be asked to provide more detail about sexual identity, fantasy, and behavior in relation to orientation (Drummond, Bradley, Badali-Peterson, & Zucker,2008; Green, 1987; Zucker & Bradley, 1995).

Despite these strengths, the NLLFS has several limitations. First, it is a nonrandom sample. At the time that the NLLFS began in the mid-1980s, due to the long history of discrimination against lesbian and gay people, the prospect of recruiting a representative sample of planned lesbian families was even more remote than it is today (Bos et al., 2007). A second limitation is that the NLLFS and NSFG were neither matched nor controlled for socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, or region of residence. An analysis of a more economically diverse sample would be an important contribution given that same-sex couples raising children are more likely to live in poverty and have lower household incomes than married, heterosexual
couples raising children (Albelda, Badgett, Schneebaum, & Gates, 2009; Julien, Jouvin, Jodoin, l'Archeveque, & Chartrand, 2008). In addition, now that it is possible to obtain more information about sperm donors, future studies might benefit from exploring the association between the offspring's sexual orientation and that of both parents. Finally, although the NLLFS is the largest, longest-running prospective study of planned lesbian families, the findings would be strengthened by replication in a larger sample.

The authors seem to me to be largely correct in assessing the strengths and
weaknesses of the NLLFS, although they seem to be downplaying the weaknesses. A study of a rather small sample of children of self-selected lesbian couples, produced via artificial insemination of one of the women, without proper controls, with data gathered using questionnaires whose answers were not independently verified, provides only limited information. The upshot is that we have (further) reason to believe that a) women as a group are not as violent or sexually
abusive as men as a group, and b) biological daughters of lesbians raised by lesbians are more likely to experiment with same-sex activity. As I said before, the findings raise interesting questions about gay fatherhood. As to whether or not its a good thing that the daughters of the lesbians in the study were sexually active at a young age, and that nearly 1/5 identified themselves on the bisexual spectrum by the age of 17, Im sure that the social sciences must have something to say.

Autodidact in post 48 objected to my characterization of much of the research Im seeing:

Quote (from me):

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?

Well, heres where Im coming from. Im happily married to a woman with whom I have three children. My wife and I each come from intact traditional families. Within our network of friends and families in the area there are many such intact traditional families, as well as a few broken ones. We are surrounded by a society in which at least half of all marriages are ending in divorce. As a teacher, I have been absolutely amazed lately at the frequency of divorce among the parents of my students. Lots of young people arent bothering to get married in the first place, figuring the odds arent very good.

Considering that our style of family is becoming more rare, we naturally find ourselves wondering why we are not following the trend. The few family break-ups in our immediate circle of friends and family have occurred largely due to the behavior of the husband (e.g. other women, financial irresponsibility, alcoholism, workaholism, violence"-sometimes all in the same individual). This seems to be the general pattern in society at large; it takes two to tango, but I cant think of many family breakups in my immediate experience where the husband was being a totally responsible husband and father and the wife was the one with the real problem. I can think of one off hand where the wife was mentally ill, and that led to the breakup, but even there the husband was no angel.

I frequently find myself comparing my actions as husband and father to the way my father was. That doesnt mean that I always try to emulate him; sometimes I use him as a pattern of what NOT to do. He had his faults, but he was sober, thrifty, hard-working, fair, faithful to my mother, civic-minded, and an all-around stand-up kind of a guy. The other husbands and fathers in my circle have similar experiences; usually we find ourselves comparing ourselves to our fathers, and occasionally deciding to avoid a mistake that the old man made.

Our wives find that their choice of husbands was greatly influenced by their relationships with their fathers. That's not to say that they married someone with the same personality, occupation, etc., but someone who had the same general qualities that they respected in their fathers. They also find that having a close relationship with a man who loved them unconditionally and in a non-sexual way helped them to see what true love was when they got into dating, where men are often either confused in their motives or just out to get someone in the sack.

I dont mean to neglect the mothers in all this, but fatherhood is the issue at the moment. The difference that the people in my circle find is that we are the fortunate beneficiaries of a more-or-less unbroken tradition of stable families in which we had not only two loving parents, but examples of specifically masculine virtue and specifically feminine virtue. What seems to be lacking today more than ever is the example of how to be a good man/husband/father. Im talking about examples of how to love one woman truly (rather than viewing sex as meaningless recreation), of how to be strong and resolute (but not violent or abusive), of how to instill respect for authority into a child (without terrorizing or tyrannizing), of how to serve the good of the family (and not try to make them your servants). No man does it perfectly, but fortunately no man has to. As long as the ideal is visible through the haze, the tradition can continue. I live in a very peculiar demographic where this tradition can still be found thriving, and I would estimate the divorce rate to be around 5%. Because of the way we've been raised to think about family life, there are simply fewer reasons for divorce, and more of an incentive to work things out rather than run away.

So, whatever boys and girls may get from being raised by two lesbians, they definitely will not get what (for example) my wife and I got. Maybe thats the point. Is it? The children in question are not just being raised by two women, but by two women who presumably have very definite views on the social construction of gender and sexual norms. How well will this upbringing serve the children in their own adult relationships, given that the vast majority of them will be heterosexual? If a boy grows up in a family in which he knows no father or mother but only parent, what effect will that have on what sort of husband and father he becomes? Or what effect may it have on his decision to get married or have children at all? How will being raised by two lesbians affect what a woman looks for in a husband, or what sort of mother she becomes in a heterosexual family? It's very hard for me to imagine what such a situation would be like, and the studies I've seen haven't followed the children of lesbians far enough in life to answer the questions I've raised.

I am emphatically NOT suggesting that having lesbian parents produces monsters, psychos, sociopaths, weirdos, etc. I DO see a very big down side in terms of what they are missing by not having fathers--the same downside I see all the time when heterosexual fathers are absent. I say this because of MY experience of the world and the people in it, and I have doubts about the usefulness of studies showing that children of select lesbians love their parents, do well in school, play well with others, and have a positive self-image. I dont doubt it for a minute. But how would you directly test the hypothesis that fathers dont matter in their lives? You cant exactly ask them So, whats it like not having a father? How would they know the difference? Ideally, you could invent a time machine and run the test with the exact same subjects both ways, but thats not likely to happen. Even testing the hypothesis indirectly by doing studies like the NLLFS will not yield any truly useful data until the children are old enough to show what sort of results they have in their own relationships and parenting. Ive been teaching long enough to know that many student who seem well-adjusted in their teens are a wreck by the time theyre in their thirties.

In addition to the essential concern I have for the particular children of lesbian couples, theres the fact that this debate about gay and lesbian adoption/parenting is taking place in the context of a society where marriage is becoming more of a meaningless, optional institution by the day, and men in general are not being challenged to rise to the occasion and accept responsibility for the children they father. Ever read Deconstructing the Essential Father, published a dozen years ago by Louise B. Silverstein and Carl R. Auerbach? It reads like a prospectus of recent gay and lesbian research. The last thing young men today need is for some ivory tower eggheads to prove that fatherhood is pass.

If I were convinced that gender and gender roles were social constructs (which is not the same as recognizing that they are influenced by social norms), and that there was nothing in human nature to stand in the way of redefining gender, sexuality, and family life any way we want to...Well, then of course I wouldnt have any problem with the lesbigay agenda. But I look around and I dont see any evidence that this is true. In almost every case, I see two sexes of human beings, each adamantly in favor of the distinct existence of the other, and each adamantly opposed to being identified with the other, i.e. the vast majority of boys still insist on being masculine, and the vast majority of girls still insist on being feminine, although their ideas of masculinity and femininity are warped by the dominant culture. What I dont see is a culture that is providing a model of constructive cooperation between the sexes rather than a war between the sexes, or an implicit compact to treat sex as no big deal (guys are big on this, if they can get away with it).

So, no, the data offered by the pro-lesbian researchers doesnt impress me, because it doesnt address the problems that I see in my experience of life. It starts from the assumption that masculinity and femininity are just social constructs, and that heterosexual marriage has no claim to be considered normative. Then it compares the outcomes of lesbian parenting to the outcomes of parenting in a world where heterosexual marriage is in a shambles, mainly because fatherhood is in a shambles, and reaches the conclusion that lesbian parenting is just as good as heterosexual parenting. Unfortunately for all of us, this conclusion is probably sound, considering the state of heterosexual parenting. I go to work every day and deal with the results of modern parenting. I want something better, and it isnt going to come about by convincing men that they have nothing unique to contribute.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 74:

Now, I think that only the most un-scientific of minds would pass this by without forming the obvious hypothesis, namely that children who are reared in households headed by two men are probably more likely to be physically or sexually abused than children raised in families headed by a man and a woman.

Notice, the data also suggest that heterosexual males are more prone to be abusive.

Indeed, this hypothesis is clearly in the researchers' minds, although they don't come right out and say it. It seems that very little research has been done on child-rearing by gay men.

Only if we were also willing to consider removing heterosexual males, whom the article suggest to be more abusive, from their roles as well.

Wouldn't we want to know more about that before making blanket statements in favor of such broad concepts as "adoption by same-sex couples" or lesbigay parenting?

Or "heterosexual males"?

The findings of the NLLFS bear out the common sense suspicion that a household headed by two women would result in less violence on average than that found in heterosexual families. So again, what is the source of the vehement opposition to exploring the corollary of this finding?

The fact that during all this, that heterosexual males, who are, according to the referenced report, more prone to commit abuse, is "swept under the rug".

"Gay men shouldn't be allowed to raise kids, cause it's been shown some of 'em are abusive" is worth considering, but only if we also include the fact (at least from the referenced data) that heterosexual males are even more prone to be abusive.

So, if approximately 1/5 of the girls in this study have had sexual contact
with another female by the age of 17, what does this mean?

I so want to be that young again, and have "peeping tom" laws removed from this great land

I propose it means that young females are exploring their sexuality.

Is this due to the fact that all of these girls were the biological children of lesbians?

Could be. Given that society makes such a fuss over the "gay issue", I propose it could be that these children are exploring due to an "overbearing" sense of wonder over why all the fuss.

Did environment play a part? What is the relationship between having sexual contact with other girls at a young age and identifying as lesbian later in life?

See my response immediately above.

Given the onset of hormones around the teens, I propose it's only natural for folks to explore their sexuality - up to and including homosexual behavior at these young ages. As well, hormones are also indicated as a factor in homosexuality. I propose combinations of such may well create an increased sexual drive in homosexuals over their heterosexual peers, in general - though firm data here could be a bit hard to come by. Please note, none of what I say here is in any way shape or form meant to imply that homosexuals would be any more or less moral, right / wrong, or anything other than human beings deserving our respect. I present my comments as a "cold, analytical" take on the issue.

...helped them to see what true love was when they got into dating...

Does jmac2112 contend that homosexuals can't find this "true love" in their own relationships?

...The difference that the people in my circle find is that we are the fortunate beneficiaries of a more-or-less unbroken tradition of stable families in which we had not only two loving parents, but examples of specifically masculine virtue and specifically feminine virtue...

Does jmac2112 contend that homosexuals can't be virtuous? Does jmac2112 contend that homosexuals have no role models?

What seems to be lacking today more than ever is the example of how to be a good man/husband/father...

Why then would jmac2112 seek to prevent lesbians from being married, in order to fill in the gap? Those who just snickered, the plank's in my eye, too.

Im talking about examples of how to love one woman truly (rather than viewing sex as meaningless recreation)

Again with the "true love" angle. Does jmac2112 contend that homosexuals can't truly love one another?

This heterosexual has little need for "true love", preferring to engage in sexual recreation, and find this to be quite meaningful.

...of how to be strong and resolute...

Does jmac2112 contend homosexuals can't be strong and resolute?

...of how to instill respect for authority into a child...

Does jmac2112 contend homesexuals are incapable of teaching a child to have respect for authority?

...of how to serve the good of the family...

Does jmac2112 contend homosexuals can't serve the good of the family?

As long as the ideal is visible through the haze, the tradition can continue.

Or, we can clear up the haze, and see that homosexuals are humans just like us.

...more of an incentive to work things out rather than run away.

Does jmac2112 contend homosexuals can't "work things out"?

So, whatever boys and girls may get from being raised by two lesbians, they definitely will not get what (for example) my wife and I got.

Instilled with the notion that gays are less deserving of rights?

How well will this upbringing serve the children in their own adult relationships, given that the vast majority of them will be heterosexual?

It'll teach 'em that being homosexual is merely one form of being human?

...If a boy grows up in a family in which he knows no father or mother but only parent, what effect will that have on what sort of husband and father he becomes? Or what effect may it have on his decision to get married or have children at all?

If a boy grows up in a "nuclear family", where data suggests heterosexual males are more prone to be abusive, how will this affect him?

How will being raised by two lesbians affect what a woman looks for in a husband, or what sort of mother she becomes in a heterosexual family? It's very hard for me to imagine what such a situation would be like, and the studies I've seen haven't followed the children of lesbians far enough in life to answer the questions I've raised.

All good, legitimate questions. I propose that since we don't see a great swath of children raised by homosexuals to have marital issues, your questions are more important as intellectual curiosity.

...I DO see a very big down side in terms of what they are missing by not having fathers--the same downside I see all the time when heterosexual fathers are absent...

What about the downside when, as the data suggest, the heterosexual male is there, and more likely to be abusive?

I contend if we are to disallow marriage based on real or perceived problems with homosexuals, we should for certain disallow marriage of heterosexual males, base on their being more prone to be abusive or to cause other problems.

In addition to the essential concern I have for the particular children of lesbian couples, theres the fact that this debate about gay and lesbian adoption/parenting is taking place in the context of a society where marriage is becoming more of a meaningless, optional institution by the day, and men in general are not being challenged to rise to the occasion and accept responsibility for the children they father.

I propose that this "becoming more meaningless" is in the eye of the beholder.

I contend that when we say such as, "I can get married, but not y'all", it is we who make marriage "meaningless".

...I see two sexes of human beings, each adamantly in favor of the distinct existence of the other, and each adamantly opposed to being identified with the other, i.e. the vast majority of boys still insist on being masculine, and the vast majority of girls still insist on being feminine, although their ideas of masculinity and femininity are warped by the dominant culture.

"Warped" in what way?

What I dont see is a culture that is providing a model of constructive cooperation between the sexes rather than a war between the sexes, or an implicit compact to treat sex as no big deal (guys are big on this, if they can get away with it).

Who is so righteous they can decree that all must consider sex a "big deal"?

So, no, the data offered by the pro-lesbian researchers doesnt impress me, because it doesnt address the problems that I see in my experience of life.

"Pro-lesbian researchers" tells me all I need to know about your stance on homosexual marriage.

[Autodidact]

Autodidact brought to my attention the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family
Study, and I've been looking into it as time permits. I ran across an article by Nanette K. Gartrell, Henny M. W. Bos, and Naomi G. Goldberg that is part of this study, published last year. It is titled "Adolescents of the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Sexual Orientation, Sexual Behavior, and Sexual Risk Exposure", and you can access it at:

http://www.nllfs.org/images/uploads/pdf ... y-2010.pdf

or if you don't have the latest and greatest Adobe Acrobat Reader, you can view it in HTML here:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k=U ... mily+Study


Here's the abstract:

This study assessed Kinsey self-ratings and lifetime sexual experiences of 17-year-olds whose lesbian mothers enrolled before these offspring were born in the longest-running, prospective study of same-sex parented families, with a 93% retention rate to date. Data for the current report were gathered through online questionnaires completed by 78 adolescent offspring (39 girls and 39 boys). The adolescents were asked if they had ever been abused and, if so, to specify by whom and the type of abuse (verbal, emotional, physical, or sexual). They were also asked to specify their sexual identity on the Kinsey scale, between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual. Lifetime sexual behavior was assessed through questions about heterosexual and same-sex contact, age of first sexual experience, contraception use, and pregnancy. The results revealed that there were no reports of physical or sexual victimization by a parent or other caregiver. Regarding sexual orientation, 18.9% of the adolescent girls and 2.7% of the adolescent boys self-rated in the bisexual spectrum, and 0% of girls and 5.4% of boys self-rated as predominantly-to-exclusively homosexual. When compared with age- and gender-matched adolescents of the National Survey of Family Growth, the study offspring were significantly older at the time of their first heterosexual contact, and the daughters of lesbian mothers were significantly more likely to have had same-sex contact. These findings suggest that adolescents reared in lesbian families are less likely than their peers to be victimized by a parent or other caregiver, and that daughters of lesbian mothers are more likely to engage in same-sex behavior and to identify as bisexual.

The two things that stand out for me are the two things that stood out for
the researchers:

First, it is certainly good to hear that "adolescents reared in lesbian
families are less likely than their peers to be victimized by a parent or other caregiver." In the "Discussion" section of the article, the researchers note:

One possible explanation for the discrepancy between the NLLFS adolescents'
reports regarding abuse and the NATSCEV victimization data might be that
most of the NLLFS adolescents grew up in households in which no adult males
resided. Since the sexual abuse of children that occurs within the home is
largely perpetrated by adult heterosexual males (Balsam et al., 2005;
Turner, Finkelhor, & Ormrod, 2007; Peter, 2009; Putnam,2003; Shusterman,
Fluke, McDonald, & Associates, 2005; Zink, Klesges, Stevens, & Decker,
2009), growing up in lesbian-headed households may protect children and
adolescents from these types of assault. In addition, corporal punishment
is less commonly used by lesbian mothers as a disciplinary measure than by
heterosexual fathers (Gartrell et al., 1999, 2000, 2005, 2006; Golombok et
al., 2003). Research has shown an association between corporal punishment
and other types of abuse (Gershoff, 2002; Sunday et al., 2008; Zolotor,
Theodore, Chang, Berkoff, & Runyan, 2008). Because this is the first study
to document lifetime parent/caregiver abuse through the self-reports of
adolescents in planned lesbian families, it will be interesting to see
whether future studies of same-sex parented families yield similar results.

Let's start with the key finding of the study:
there were no reports of physical or sexual victimization by a parent or other caregiver. Let that sink in. None. Zero. No abuse of any kind. Any person reviewing this data who has the slightest interest in knowing the truth would conclude that lesbian parents are doing a better job than heterosexual parents, that lesbian families provide an excellent environment for children, and would therefore realize that they were mistaken when they claimed the opposite.

But if you were instead trying to find some shred of evidence for your bigoted lies, you would then jump from this fact to a hypothesis that children should not be raised by homosexual men.

Now, I think that only the most un-scientific of minds would pass this by without forming the obvious hypothesis, namely that children who are reared in households headed by two men are probably more likely to be physically or sexually abused than children raised in families headed by a man and a woman. Indeed, this hypothesis is clearly in the researchers' minds, although they don't come right out and say it. It seems that very little research has been done on child-rearing by gay men. Wouldn't we want to know more about that before making blanket statements in favor of such broad concepts as "adoption by same-sex couples" or lesbigay parenting?

Then I suggest that you, and the people opposing gay parenting, explore it, rather than just making unsubstantiated claims about it.

I wrote things earlier in this thread suggesting that this is a hypothesis
worth exploring. I got responses such as this on from Flail (post 47)

Quote (from me):

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?

Or this one from Autodidact (post 50)

Quote (from me):

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?

Why is it that the mere suggestion of following up on an obvious hypothesis elicits such a strong negative reaction? Flail misses the point (I stipulated that the child was not the natural child of either father, so therefore both men would be in a "stepfather" relation to the child), but is clearly upset. Autodidact demands evidence before she will even allow the hypothesis to be stated, and calls me a bigot for suggesting such a thing. Are some people afraid of what might be found if such a study were conducted? And how would any of us have an iota of evidence of the sort Autodidact demands unless such a prospective longitudinal study were performed? Unless, of course, we went with our common sense knowledge that men are more prone to violence than women. The findings of the NLLFS bear out the common sense suspicion that a household headed by two women would result in less violence on average than that found in heterosexual families. So again, what is the source of the vehement opposition to exploring the corollary of this finding?

If this is YOUR hypothesis, and the hypothesis of the gay-hating bigots who spread these lies about gay parents, then it is incumbent on you and them to do the studies to test the hypothesis, rather than jump to the conclusion that it is the case. I would certainly not leap to that conclusion with insufficient data. But then, I care about the facts.

I see that you admit that you do not have an iota of evidence to support your assertion. Until you do, I suggest that you make it clear that it only a hypothesis, your hypothesis, and has no evidence to support it.

In other words, stop saying that the heterosexual family is a better environment for children than a same-sex family, until you have some evidence to support that assertion.

I, meanwhile, have a lot of evidence to support my assertion that in fact lesbian families provide a superior environment to heterosexual families.

I'm not asserting that heterosexuals should not be allowed to marry, have or adopt children, but it might be a good idea for them to use birth control until they are prepared to take care of them.

The second thing that stood out is the finding that:

Regarding sexual orientation, 18.9% of the adolescent girls and 2.7% of the
adolescent boys self-rated in the bisexual spectrum, and 0% of girls and
5.4% of boys self-rated as predominantly-to-exclusively homosexual. When
compared with age- and gender-matched adolescents of the National Survey of
Family Growth, the study offspring were significantly older at the time of
their first heterosexual contact, and the daughters of lesbian mothers were
significantly more likely to have had same-sex contact.

So, if approximately 1/5 of the girls in this study have had sexual contact
with another female by the age of 17, what does this mean? Is this due to
the fact that all of these girls were the biological children of lesbians?
Did environment play a part? What is the relationship between having sexual
contact with other girls at a young age and identifying as lesbian later in
life?

As the authors of the report say:

Research has documented considerable fluidity in the development and
expression of sexual orientation, particularly among young women (Diamond,
2005, 2007; Diamond & Butterworth, 2008). In a 10-year study of
nonheterosexual women between the ages of 16 and 23, Diamond (2007) asked
women how they identified in terms of their sexual orientation, including
the terms "lesbian," "bisexual," "unlabeled," or "heterosexual." Diamond
found over the course of 10 years, two-thirds of women had changed their
identity label at least once, and one-quarter had changed their identity
label more than once. The next NLLFS follow-up-at T6, when the offspring are
25 years old-will assess the stability of their sexual behavior and
orientation over time.

It will be interesting to see what they find out. Perhaps the study will continue to follow them in their later sexual relationships, marriages (or decisions not to marry), and child rearing (or decisions not to have children).

And of course, if more of their daughters are exploring their capacity to form an intimate bond with another woman, that is also a good thing, since a lesbian way of life has many advantages for them and their children.

Regarding the strengths and weakness of the NLFFS, the article says:

A strength of the NLLFS is that it is a prospective study, so the findings are not skewed by overrepresentation of families who volunteer when it is already clear that their offspring are functioning well. In addition, the dropout rate was very small. In most cases, the families that withdrew did so when the index children were less than 5 years old (Gartrell & Bos, 2010; Gartrell et al., 2000, 2006). Also, the T5 data were gathered through confidential adolescent self-reports, thereby increasing the likelihood of candid responses on sensitive topics, such as sexuality and victimization. Because the NLLFS is an ongoing longitudinal study, it is possible to assess consistency in behavior at different time intervals. In the current investigation, adolescents were only asked to provide information about their sexual identity on the Kinsey scale. At T6, the offspring will be asked to provide more detail about sexual identity, fantasy, and behavior in relation to orientation (Drummond, Bradley, Badali-Peterson, & Zucker,2008; Green, 1987; Zucker & Bradley, 1995).

Despite these strengths, the NLLFS has several limitations. First, it is a nonrandom sample. At the time that the NLLFS began in the mid-1980s, due to the long history of discrimination against lesbian and gay people, the prospect of recruiting a representative sample of planned lesbian families was even more remote than it is today (Bos et al., 2007). A second limitation is that the NLLFS and NSFG were neither matched nor controlled for socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, or region of residence. An analysis of a more economically diverse sample would be an important contribution given that same-sex couples raising children are more likely to live in poverty and have lower household incomes than married, heterosexual
couples raising children (Albelda, Badgett, Schneebaum, & Gates, 2009; Julien, Jouvin, Jodoin, l'Archeveque, & Chartrand, 2008). In addition, now that it is possible to obtain more information about sperm donors, future studies might benefit from exploring the association between the offspring's sexual orientation and that of both parents. Finally, although the NLLFS is the largest, longest-running prospective study of planned lesbian families, the findings would be strengthened by replication in a larger sample.

...
Autodidact in post 48 objected to my characterization of much of the research Im seeing:

Quote (from me):

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?

Well, heres where Im coming from. Im happily married to a woman with whom I have three children. My wife and I each come from intact traditional families. Within our network of friends and families in the area there are many such intact traditional families, as well as a few broken ones. We are surrounded by a society in which at least half of all marriages are ending in divorce. As a teacher, I have been absolutely amazed lately at the frequency of divorce among the parents of my students. Lots of young people arent bothering to get married in the first place, figuring the odds arent very good.

Considering that our style of family is becoming more rare, we naturally find ourselves wondering why we are not following the trend. The few family break-ups in our immediate circle of friends and family have occurred largely due to the behavior of the husband (e.g. other women, financial irresponsibility, alcoholism, workaholism, violence"-sometimes all in the same individual). This seems to be the general pattern in society at large; it takes two to tango, but I cant think of many family breakups in my immediate experience where the husband was being a totally responsible husband and father and the wife was the one with the real problem. I can think of one off hand where the wife was mentally ill, and that led to the breakup, but even there the husband was no angel.

I frequently find myself comparing my actions as husband and father to the way my father was. That doesnt mean that I always try to emulate him; sometimes I use him as a pattern of what NOT to do. He had his faults, but he was sober, thrifty, hard-working, fair, faithful to my mother, civic-minded, and an all-around stand-up kind of a guy. The other husbands and fathers in my circle have similar experiences; usually we find ourselves comparing ourselves to our fathers, and occasionally deciding to avoid a mistake that the old man made.

Our wives find that their choice of husbands was greatly influenced by their relationships with their fathers. That's not to say that they married someone with the same personality, occupation, etc., but someone who had the same general qualities that they respected in their fathers. They also find that having a close relationship with a man who loved them unconditionally and in a non-sexual way helped them to see what true love was when they got into dating, where men are often either confused in their motives or just out to get someone in the sack.

I dont mean to neglect the mothers in all this, but fatherhood is the issue at the moment. The difference that the people in my circle find is that we are the fortunate beneficiaries of a more-or-less unbroken tradition of stable families in which we had not only two loving parents, but examples of specifically masculine virtue and specifically feminine virtue. What seems to be lacking today more than ever is the example of how to be a good man/husband/father. Im talking about examples of how to love one woman truly (rather than viewing sex as meaningless recreation), of how to be strong and resolute (but not violent or abusive), of how to instill respect for authority into a child (without terrorizing or tyrannizing), of how to serve the good of the family (and not try to make them your servants). No man does it perfectly, but fortunately no man has to. As long as the ideal is visible through the haze, the tradition can continue. I live in a very peculiar demographic where this tradition can still be found thriving, and I would estimate the divorce rate to be around 5%. Because of the way we've been raised to think about family life, there are simply fewer reasons for divorce, and more of an incentive to work things out rather than run away.

So, whatever boys and girls may get from being raised by two lesbians, they definitely will not get what (for example) my wife and I got. Maybe thats the point. Is it? The children in question are not just being raised by two women, but by two women who presumably have very definite views on the social construction of gender and sexual norms. How well will this upbringing serve the children in their own adult relationships, given that the vast majority of them will be heterosexual? If a boy grows up in a family in which he knows no father or mother but only parent, what effect will that have on what sort of husband and father he becomes? Or what effect may it have on his decision to get married or have children at all? How will being raised by two lesbians affect what a woman looks for in a husband, or what sort of mother she becomes in a heterosexual family? It's very hard for me to imagine what such a situation would be like, and the studies I've seen haven't followed the children of lesbians far enough in life to answer the questions I've raised.

I see. You don't have any evidence, had never read the research, and are basing your assumptions solely on your own life, experience and upbringing. Good to know. These are all good questions, and ones that we can look to the research to answer. The research seems to indicate the answers are all positive for lesbian parenting.

In any case, questions are not statements. You made a statement. It was based on nothing whatsoever. It was false. Further, it was defamatory. It defames a hard-working group of excellent parents, probably the best parents in the country. So at this point, you should withdraw it, and apologize to the people you irresponsibly defamed.

Now, here's where I'm coming from. I'm a lesbian mother of 3 children, ages 23, 16 and 12. The youngest one was adopted because her irresponsible heterosexual parents could not provide for her. I spend every day of my life trying to repair the damage done by her heterosexual birth parents and foster parents. It's hard. Very hard.

I know dozens of lesbian families, and a few gay fathers. All of them, without exception, are excellent parents whose children are fortunate to be raised by such loving and caring parents. Those who are grown, which at this point are many, are doing very well. (btw so far all of the grown children are heterosexual, including my own.) And we do not appreciate people going around the internet telling lies about us. So please stop doing it. Thank you.

I am emphatically NOT suggesting that having lesbian parents produces monsters, psychos, sociopaths, weirdos, etc. I DO see a very big down side in terms of what they are missing by not having fathers--the same downside I see all the time when heterosexual fathers are absent. I say this because of MY experience of the world and the people in it, and I have doubts about the usefulness of studies showing that children of select lesbians love their parents, do well in school, play well with others, and have a positive self-image. I dont doubt it for a minute. But how would you directly test the hypothesis that fathers dont matter in their lives? You cant exactly ask them So, whats it like not having a father? How would they know the difference? Ideally, you could invent a time machine and run the test with the exact same subjects both ways, but thats not likely to happen. Even testing the hypothesis indirectly by doing studies like the NLLFS will not yield any truly useful data until the children are old enough to show what sort of results they have in their own relationships and parenting. Ive been teaching long enough to know that many student who seem well-adjusted in their teens are a wreck by the time theyre in their thirties.

Well, I'm also not saying that all children in heterosexual families turn out to be psychos or monsters either--only some of them.

The way you test the hypothesis, obviously, is to compare how well they are doing to children raised in heterosexual families. If you believe that this hypothesis cannot be tested, then you should stop stating it as a fact. At most it is your hypothesis, it is not supported by the evidence, and in fact all the evidence that we do have contradicts it. You choose to continue to believe it anyway. I guess you can maintain your belief in the face of the evidence if you want, but to continue to state it as fact is, frankly, dishonest.

In addition to the essential concern I have for the particular children of lesbian couples, theres the fact that this debate about gay and lesbian adoption/parenting is taking place in the context of a society where marriage is becoming more of a meaningless, optional institution by the day, and men in general are not being challenged to rise to the occasion and accept responsibility for the children they father. Ever read Deconstructing the Essential Father, published a dozen years ago by Louise B. Silverstein and Carl R. Auerbach? It reads like a prospectus of recent gay and lesbian research. The last thing young men today need is for some ivory tower eggheads to prove that fatherhood is pass.

What one earth does this have to do with our conversation? Children need parents. Two parents are better than one. If one of those parents is a man, then he needs to step up and do his job. Supporting lesbian families is no way prevents him from doing that, or implies that he should not; quite the contrary.

If I were convinced that gender and gender roles were social constructs (which is not the same as recognizing that they are influenced by social norms), and that there was nothing in human nature to stand in the way of redefining gender, sexuality, and family life any way we want to...Well, then of course I wouldnt have any problem with the lesbigay agenda. But I look around and I dont see any evidence that this is true. In almost every case, I see two sexes of human beings, each adamantly in favor of the distinct existence of the other, and each adamantly opposed to being identified with the other, i.e. the vast majority of boys still insist on being masculine, and the vast majority of girls still insist on being feminine, although their ideas of masculinity and femininity are warped by the dominant culture. What I dont see is a culture that is providing a model of constructive cooperation between the sexes rather than a war between the sexes, or an implicit compact to treat sex as no big deal (guys are big on this, if they can get away with it).

I have not made any claims whatsoever about gender. All that I have said is that it is a fact that children in lesbian families do at least as well as children in heterosexual families, if not better. What implications this has for gender theory I leave for you, who are interested in it, to work out. I think it means that children need good, caring, skilled parents, and their gender is not the most important factor.

So, no, the data offered by the pro-lesbian researchers doesnt impress me, because it doesnt address the problems that I see in my experience of life. It starts from the assumption that masculinity and femininity are just social constructs, and that heterosexual marriage has no claim to be considered normative. Then it compares the outcomes of lesbian parenting to the outcomes of parenting in a world where heterosexual marriage is in a shambles, mainly because fatherhood is in a shambles, and reaches the conclusion that lesbian parenting is just as good as heterosexual parenting. Unfortunately for all of us, this conclusion is probably sound, considering the state of heterosexual parenting. I go to work every day and deal with the results of modern parenting. I want something better, and it isnt going to come about by convincing men that they have nothing unique to contribute.

I understand. You have managed to construct an impenetrable reality barrier, which the actual facts cannot impact. You have your own agenda, having to do entirely with heterosexuals, specifically heterosexual men, and you choose to spread disinformation about lesbians in order to further it.

I realize that you're "not impressed." As I said, we're not concerned with what you believe. We're concerned with the facts. And the facts are that children of lesbian families do AT LEAST as well as children of heterosexual families.

I would appreciate it if you would stop spreading lies about us. Thank you.