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.

[Sonclad]

Homosexuality is not a disease, and so not subject to a cure. It is simply a normal human variation

.I'm saying that it is perfectly moral. There is nothing immoral about it. It harms no one and causes no suffering. It is a form of love, and love is a good thing.

. Is this just your opinion about it being "perfectly moral" that you're expressing or are you making a blanket moral statement?

It also happens to be perfectly natural, which is a separate issue.

. What do you mean by "natural"?

If you want to assert that homosexuality is immoral, then present a non-religious moral objection.

. How is this possible? Without God, we cannot be moral. If you object to this claim, define "moral".
.

People sometimes argue in favor of homosexuality by arguing that their inclination is "natural" (normal), and if its natural, then we shouldnt be making any moral objections about it. Is that what you are saying in your past couple of posts?

[Filthy Tugboat]

The summary:
1) Marriage is a natural social institution that has existed at all times and in all places as long as there have been people like us.

2) Homosexuality has also probably existed at all times and in all places as well, and there have been some cultures (such as the ancient Greek) in which homosexual relationships were tolerated without a problem. However, there has never been a society prior to ours which tried to elevate such relationships to the status of a privileged institution or equate them with marriage.

Assuming this is true, why is this a valuable or meaningful point, our society does not equate homosexual unions with heterosexual ones and we want to change that, if other nations don't do it or have never done it, that doesn't affect gay marriage support at all.

2) Although religion has often endorsed marriage, marriage is not an institution dreamed up by priests, prophets, seers, shamans, etc.

3) Although governments throughout history have often promoted and defended marriage, marriage is not an institution dreamed up by kings, tyrants, chieftains, oligarchs, senators, presidents, etc.

4) To the extent that governments have promoted and defended marriage, they have done so because stable marriages are good for society. They produce well-socialized men and women who form stable marriages of their own, which in turn produce well-socialized men and women, etc., etc., etc.

Agreed.

5) No governments up to now have had any interest in promoting or defending unions between two men or two women, for the simple reason that such unions offer no substantial benefit to society.

Don't they? Perhaps you could support that assertion

For the same reason, governments have not encouraged friends, roommates, coworkers, relatives, or any other group of two or more people to enter into a binding union with one another.

There is a difference between a homosexual couple and the groups you mentioned.

Marriage is different, because only men and women can produce children, and it is in the best interest of the children and of society if a man and a woman who have children are bound together by an enforceable contract.

It certainly is beneficial to society when reproduction occurs in stable relationships, however, homosexual couples can have children, their methods are different, the results, not so much.

6) It is only because our notion of marriage has deteriorated over the last 50 years (and beyond) that the idea of gay marriage has entered into anyones head.

Could you support this assertion?

Marriage, as it is understood and practiced today, involves a quasi-contractual union of a man and a woman, of indeterminate duration, which can be called off at any time by either party for any reason.

As it should be.

As for the welfare of any children involved, we fool ourselves into believing that that theyll be OK if we work the custody arrangement the right way and provide counseling.

So you think that a woman who married a man that she didn't know would be violent and who fears for her life and the life of her children should not get a divorce? Either way, it's irrelevant

7) The issue of gay marriage is thus a symptom of a problem caused by heterosexuals and their attitudes toward sex and marriage. As I say in part of my argument, the problem isnt the mere fact that some small fraction of a small fraction of the population may be allowed to enter into a union that a state government dignifies with the name marriage. The problem is that such a phenomenon serves to legitimate and further the current heterosexual notion of marriage as a quasi-permanent, quasi-sterile lifestyle that exists mainly for the benefit of the adult parties. If sex had not become divorced from marriage and commitment, if marriage were still viewed as a permanent commitment having a definite connection to childrearing, and if we still had any notion of rights being connected to obligations, then the absurdity of gay marriage would be apparent to all.

Sex isn't and never has been something that is strictly apart of marriage. Child-bearing isn't and never has been something that is strictly apart of marriage. Marriage is a "lifestyle" that is entered into for the benefit of adult parties. I don't know if I need to respond to more of what you've written, it seems to all be based on false information or wishes for things to be different than they are. If your conclusions are based on false information then perhaps they are wrong?


The topic for debate is broad: Does the argument hold water or not? If not, at what specific point(s)? Again, please critique the developed argument (in the OP and the post immediately following it) rather than the summary.


I will be out of town and incommunicado for the next two days, unfortunately. If I don't reply to something right away (like Autodidact's reply on the first page), that's why.[/quote]

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 26:

1) Marriage is a natural social institution that has existed at all times and in all places as long as there have been people like us.

Heterosexuals?

2) Homosexuality has also probably existed at all times and in all places as well, and there have been some cultures (such as the ancient Greek) in which homosexual relationships were tolerated without a problem. However, there has never been a society prior to ours which tried to elevate such relationships to the status of a privileged institution or equate them with marriage.

Argument from tradition. That they've been denied rights for so long is hardly any reason to keep a-doin' it.

3) Although governments throughout history have often promoted and defended marriage, marriage is not an institution dreamed up by kings, tyrants, chieftains, oligarchs, senators, presidents, etc.

Then why should it be defined by any one class thereof?

4) To the extent that governments have promoted and defended marriage, they have done so because stable marriages are good for society. They produce well-socialized men and women who form stable marriages of their own, which in turn produce well-socialized men and women, etc., etc., etc.

Does jmac2112 contend homosexuals are not "well-socialized"? What might be some possible causes of all that non-well-socializin'?

5) No governments up to now have had any interest in promoting or defending unions between two men or two women, for the simple reason that such unions offer no substantial benefit to society.
...

Gee, with all these christians a-votin', whooda thunk that'd be the case?

Again with the argument from tradition.

6) It is only because our notion of marriage has deteriorated over the last 50 years (and beyond) that the idea of gay marriage has entered into anyones head.

Deteriorated according to whom?

I propose we not bind ourselves to the thoughts of our ancestors, but use 'em more for like a kinduva guide.

...
As for the welfare of any children involved, we fool ourselves into believing that that theyll be OK if we work the custody arrangement the right way and provide counseling.

That you'd start off with counseling indicates to this observer that you may be needing a good bit of it yourself. Loving, responible, intelligent parents are what these kids need, not some busy-body or bully giving 'em a hard time.

7) The issue of gay marriage is thus a symptom of a problem caused by heterosexuals and their attitudes toward sex and marriage.

But don't get onto the homosexuals, get onto all them prudes in the heterosexual side of it.

...
If sex had not become divorced from marriage and commitment, if marriage were still viewed as a permanent commitment having a definite connection to childrearing, and if we still had any notion of rights being connected to obligations, then the absurdity of gay marriage would be apparent to all.
...

If. Your statement is reminiscent of so many message filled bottles afloat in the oceans.

The argument also doesn't provide for an increasingly sophisticated culture, instead it pines for the days of yore, when bread was a nickel and folks knew their place.

Why not adapt the definition of marriage to include an increasingly diverse set of folks doing it?

[JayDeist]

Christianity causes hate, intolerance, bigotry, undue judgement, hypocrisy, and most of all, lack of morals.

You cannot have morals without God? Are you serious? That is still the most lame argument I've ever heard from a Christian. Especially since Christians have less morals than non-christians (my opinion).

If homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, then why do heterosexuals even care? Religious people always try to find a reason to meddle into other people's affairs, even when it doesn't effect their life in any way. And ya gotta love the argument where homosexuality will cause the end of life as we know it, because there is always the possibility that one day, everyone will wake up gay. These are all arguments from ingorance. You have to be ignorant to think any of these arguments stand up to scrutiny.

[jmac2112]

Finally getting around to answering some of the replies to my OP. Autodidact was the first, so here goes:

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?

The fact is that gay and lesbian adults do give birth to, foster and adopt children, and that those children do quite well, at least as well as those in heterosexual families. They do so well, in fact, that some people are starting to look at these families to determine what straight families can learn from them to be more effective parents. When you factor in the many children of heterosexuals who are not wanted, not planned for and not cared for, it is clear that gay and lesbian parents make a significant positive contribution to society, and one that deserves all the support we can give it.

That's why the American Academy of Pediatrics supports equal rights for gay and lesbian families, and why every major child welfare organization supports same-sex adoption and legal equality for gay and lesbian families.

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

Im trying to think of all the different situations that could be studied here:

1) Two gay men adopt a boy unrelated to either of them.

2 Two gay men adopt a girl unrelated to either of them.

3) Two lesbians adopt a boy unrelated to either of them.

4) Two lesbians adopt a girl unrelated to either of them.

5) A gay/bi man has a boy with his wife, divorces his wife to be with his lover, and they adopt the boy.

6) A gay/bi man has a girl with his wife, divorces his wife to be with his lover, and they adopt the girl.

7) A lesbian/bi has a boy with her husband, divorces her husband to be with her lover, and they adopt the boy.

8) A lesbian/bi has a girl with her husband, divorces her husband to be with her lover, and they adopt the girl.

9) Two gay men have child involving the combination of the sperm of one of them with an egg from a female donor (Im stating it this way to cover whatever possible methods exist) and have either a boy or a girl.

10) Two lesbians have child involving the combination of an egg from one of them with the sperm of a donor (again, by whatever method) and have either a boy or a girl.



Im sure there are many other minor variations.

Some questions immediately come to mind.

1) Have studies been done concerning the welfare of children in each of these situations?
Some of the cases listed above could result in devastating consequences. I know that children who are adopted by heterosexual parents often have issues that require counseling. What are the effects on a child who finds out that one of his gay fathers masturbated and had his sperm inserted into a woman who carried him for nine months, a woman whom he has never met? Or would the situation be much better if he did meet her? Or a child who finds out that her father is an anonymous sperm donor? I assure you, Im not joking or trying to be gross. These are real situations that a child could face, and they are not the result of any accident, rape, or other misfortune. People have to make a conscious choice to bring these situations about.


2) How long has research in this area been conducted? I believe that legal adoption by gays and lesbians in the U.S. goes back to the mid-90s (correct me if Im wrong). I find it hard to believe that significant research has been done regarding the long-term welfare of children over such a short time.


3) What is the ratio of adoptions by lesbians vs. adoptions by gay men? I would suspect that the vast majority of adoptions are by lesbians, but I could be wrong.

4) A related question: What is the relative stability of lesbian relationships vs. those between gay men? This seems relevant in determining which type of relationship is likely to be more successful in raising a child.


They do so well, in fact, that some people are starting to look at these families to determine what straight families can learn from them to be more effective parents.

Id like to know all the specifics about this.
a) Who are some people?
b) Are they looking primarily at lesbian families, or gay and lesbian
families
equally?
c) Are stable gay and./or lesbian families being compared to stable
heterosexual
families?
d) What in particular should heterosexual families be learning from
gay/lesbian famlies?

When you factor in the many children of heterosexuals who are not wanted, not planned for and not cared for, it is clear that gay and lesbian parents make a significant positive contribution to society, and one that deserves all the support we can give it.

The truth of this statement might depend on the answers to long-term studies of the situations I listed above. But some other considerations give me pause as well.

Ive been teaching for 16 years now, mostly high school, but also middle school and college as well. Ive had a lot of opportunities to observe kids and their families. Whenever a child is troubled in some way, I have found that I usually need look no further than the parents to find the major cause.

One of the main correlations that I have seen over the years is between promiscuity on the part of teenage girls (and older) and the lack of a solid relationship with their fathers. Im not saying that having an emotionally distant or physically absent father always leads to emotional neediness and promiscuity by teenage girls, but when I notice this sort of behavior by girls, I almost always find the lack of a relationship with their fathers. They dont have a man in their life who provides them with the sort of true, unconditional and non-sexual love that a father can provide, and so they throw themselves at boys to get male attention any way they can get it. Will the lesbian parents be able to provide this sort of love? If one mother cant do it, will two mothers succeed? Likewise, boys who grow up without a father in their lives often turn out rather badly. Im sure weve all seen this.

Nor is a mothers role unimportant in the least. I think thats why in divorce cases there seems to be a presumption in favor of maternal custody. Can two men really provide children with true maternal care? I'm not even sure how you could design an experiment to test this hypothesis. It just seems self-evident to most people that even a man (or two) more sensitive and cuddly than Mr. Rogers still wouldn't be a good substitute for a mother.

I dont have studies at my fingertips to prove the realities that Im presenting here. But would you seriously deny the truth of what Im saying?

I know that things often turn out badly in heterosexual families, BUT, once again, those are not cases where somebody deliberately set out to have kids and then mess them up. The fact that bad things happen is not an excuse for doing bad things on purpose.

[Autodidact]

Finally getting around to answering some of the replies to my OP. Autodidact was the first, so here goes:

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?

The fact is that gay and lesbian adults do give birth to, foster and adopt children, and that those children do quite well, at least as well as those in heterosexual families. They do so well, in fact, that some people are starting to look at these families to determine what straight families can learn from them to be more effective parents. When you factor in the many children of heterosexuals who are not wanted, not planned for and not cared for, it is clear that gay and lesbian parents make a significant positive contribution to society, and one that deserves all the support we can give it.

That's why the American Academy of Pediatrics supports equal rights for gay and lesbian families, and why every major child welfare organization supports same-sex adoption and legal equality for gay and lesbian families.

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

Im trying to think of all the different situations that could be studied here:

1) Two gay men adopt a boy unrelated to either of them.

2 Two gay men adopt a girl unrelated to either of them.

3) Two lesbians adopt a boy unrelated to either of them.

4) Two lesbians adopt a girl unrelated to either of them.

5) A gay/bi man has a boy with his wife, divorces his wife to be with his lover, and they adopt the boy.

6) A gay/bi man has a girl with his wife, divorces his wife to be with his lover, and they adopt the girl.

7) A lesbian/bi has a boy with her husband, divorces her husband to be with her lover, and they adopt the boy.

8) A lesbian/bi has a girl with her husband, divorces her husband to be with her lover, and they adopt the girl.

9) Two gay men have child involving the combination of the sperm of one of them with an egg from a female donor (Im stating it this way to cover whatever possible methods exist) and have either a boy or a girl.

10) Two lesbians have child involving the combination of an egg from one of them with the sperm of a donor (again, by whatever method) and have either a boy or a girl.



Im sure there are many other minor variations.

Some questions immediately come to mind.

1) Have studies been done concerning the welfare of children in each of these situations?
Some of the cases listed above could result in devastating consequences. I know that children who are adopted by heterosexual parents often have issues that require counseling. What are the effects on a child who finds out that one of his gay fathers masturbated and had his sperm inserted into a woman who carried him for nine months, a woman whom he has never met? Or would the situation be much better if he did meet her? Or a child who finds out that her father is an anonymous sperm donor? I assure you, Im not joking or trying to be gross. These are real situations that a child could face, and they are not the result of any accident, rape, or other misfortune. People have to make a conscious choice to bring these situations about.

Here's what has been done: Children raised in intact, two parent, lesbian (and, to a lesser extent, gay) families have been compared to those raised in intact, two-parent, heterosexual families. The results of many studies indicate that they do at least as well, if not better.

2) How long has research in this area been conducted? I believe that legal adoption by gays and lesbians in the U.S. goes back to the mid-90s (correct me if Im wrong). I find it hard to believe that significant research has been done regarding the long-term welfare of children over such a short time.

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.

3) What is the ratio of adoptions by lesbians vs. adoptions by gay men? I would suspect that the vast majority of adoptions are by lesbians, but I could be wrong.

Many more lesbians have biological children than gay men. Not sure about the adoption ratio. My guess would be that slightly more lesbians than gay men adopt, but I'm not sure.

4) A related question: What is the relative stability of lesbian relationships vs. those between gay men? This seems relevant in determining which type of relationship is likely to be more successful in raising a child.

And vs. straight couples. I believe they're all quite similar.

They do so well, in fact, that some people are starting to look at these families to determine what straight families can learn from them to be more effective parents.

Id like to know all the specifics about this.
a) Who are some people?

Child psychologists and developmental researchers.

b) Are they looking primarily at lesbian families, or gay and lesbian
families
equally?

Both.

c) Are stable gay and./or lesbian families being compared to stable
heterosexual
families?

The comparison is between intact, two parent families of each type.

d) What in particular should heterosexual families be learning from
gay/lesbian famlies?

What children need to develop healthy self-esteem and good behavior. Here's a popular article:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 80,00.html
Although active involvement isn't unique to lesbian households, Gartrell notes that same-sex mothers tend to make that kind of parenting more of a priority. Because their children are more likely to experience discrimination and stigmatization as a result of their family circumstances, these mothers can be more likely to broach complicated topics, such as sexuality and diversity and tolerance, with their children early on. Having such a foundation may help to give these children more confidence and maturity in dealing with social differences and prejudices as they get older.

When you factor in the many children of heterosexuals who are not wanted, not planned for and not cared for, it is clear that gay and lesbian parents make a significant positive contribution to society, and one that deserves all the support we can give it.

The truth of this statement might depend on the answers to long-term studies of the situations I listed above. But some other considerations give me pause as well.

Ive been teaching for 16 years now, mostly high school, but also middle school and college as well. Ive had a lot of opportunities to observe kids and their families. Whenever a child is troubled in some way, I have found that I usually need look no further than the parents to find the major cause.

One of the main correlations that I have seen over the years is between promiscuity on the part of teenage girls (and older) and the lack of a solid relationship with their fathers. Im not saying that having an emotionally distant or physically absent father always leads to emotional neediness and promiscuity by teenage girls, but when I notice this sort of behavior by girls, I almost always find the lack of a relationship with their fathers. They dont have a man in their life who provides them with the sort of true, unconditional and non-sexual love that a father can provide, and so they throw themselves at boys to get male attention any way they can get it. Will the lesbian parents be able to provide this sort of love? If one mother cant do it, will two mothers succeed? Likewise, boys who grow up without a father in their lives often turn out rather badly. Im sure weve all seen this.

How many children of gay and lesbian families have you had in your classroom? How did those kids do? That's what you need to look at, not children of divorce, obviously.

Nor is a mothers role unimportant in the least. I think thats why in divorce cases there seems to be a presumption in favor of maternal custody. Can two men really provide children with true maternal care? I'm not even sure how you could design an experiment to test this hypothesis. It just seems self-evident to most people that even a man (or two) more sensitive and cuddly than Mr. Rogers still wouldn't be a good substitute for a mother.

I would think you would look at adults raised by same-sex couples and adults raised by heterosexual couples and see how they turned out, wouldn't you?

I dont have studies at my fingertips to prove the realities that Im presenting here. But would you seriously deny the truth of what Im saying?

Of course. What you said is simply false. Children in heterosexual families do not do better than children in same-sex families. That's why you can't find any research that says that--it's not true. It's false. Please stop saying it--slandering entire groups of people is immoral.

I know that things often turn out badly in heterosexual families, BUT, once again, those are not cases where somebody deliberately set out to have kids and then mess them up. The fact that bad things happen is not an excuse for doing bad things on purpose.

All children should be brought into the world "on purpose." That's the main reason lesbians do better than straight families--all their children are wanted children.

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?

[Goat]

Finally getting around to answering some of the replies to my OP. Autodidact was the first, so here goes:

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?

The fact is that gay and lesbian adults do give birth to, foster and adopt children, and that those children do quite well, at least as well as those in heterosexual families. They do so well, in fact, that some people are starting to look at these families to determine what straight families can learn from them to be more effective parents. When you factor in the many children of heterosexuals who are not wanted, not planned for and not cared for, it is clear that gay and lesbian parents make a significant positive contribution to society, and one that deserves all the support we can give it.

That's why the American Academy of Pediatrics supports equal rights for gay and lesbian families, and why every major child welfare organization supports same-sex adoption and legal equality for gay and lesbian families.

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

Im trying to think of all the different situations that could be studied here:

1) Two gay men adopt a boy unrelated to either of them.

2 Two gay men adopt a girl unrelated to either of them.

3) Two lesbians adopt a boy unrelated to either of them.

4) Two lesbians adopt a girl unrelated to either of them.

5) A gay/bi man has a boy with his wife, divorces his wife to be with his lover, and they adopt the boy.

6) A gay/bi man has a girl with his wife, divorces his wife to be with his lover, and they adopt the girl.

7) A lesbian/bi has a boy with her husband, divorces her husband to be with her lover, and they adopt the boy.

8) A lesbian/bi has a girl with her husband, divorces her husband to be with her lover, and they adopt the girl.

9) Two gay men have child involving the combination of the sperm of one of them with an egg from a female donor (Im stating it this way to cover whatever possible methods exist) and have either a boy or a girl.

10) Two lesbians have child involving the combination of an egg from one of them with the sperm of a donor (again, by whatever method) and have either a boy or a girl.



Im sure there are many other minor variations.

Some questions immediately come to mind.

1) Have studies been done concerning the welfare of children in each of these situations?
Some of the cases listed above could result in devastating consequences. I know that children who are adopted by heterosexual parents often have issues that require counseling. What are the effects on a child who finds out that one of his gay fathers masturbated and had his sperm inserted into a woman who carried him for nine months, a woman whom he has never met? Or would the situation be much better if he did meet her? Or a child who finds out that her father is an anonymous sperm donor? I assure you, Im not joking or trying to be gross. These are real situations that a child could face, and they are not the result of any accident, rape, or other misfortune. People have to make a conscious choice to bring these situations about.


2) How long has research in this area been conducted? I believe that legal adoption by gays and lesbians in the U.S. goes back to the mid-90s (correct me if Im wrong). I find it hard to believe that significant research has been done regarding the long-term welfare of children over such a short time.


3) What is the ratio of adoptions by lesbians vs. adoptions by gay men? I would suspect that the vast majority of adoptions are by lesbians, but I could be wrong.

4) A related question: What is the relative stability of lesbian relationships vs. those between gay men? This seems relevant in determining which type of relationship is likely to be more successful in raising a child.


They do so well, in fact, that some people are starting to look at these families to determine what straight families can learn from them to be more effective parents.

Id like to know all the specifics about this.
a) Who are some people?
b) Are they looking primarily at lesbian families, or gay and lesbian
families
equally?
c) Are stable gay and./or lesbian families being compared to stable
heterosexual
families?
d) What in particular should heterosexual families be learning from
gay/lesbian famlies?

When you factor in the many children of heterosexuals who are not wanted, not planned for and not cared for, it is clear that gay and lesbian parents make a significant positive contribution to society, and one that deserves all the support we can give it.

The truth of this statement might depend on the answers to long-term studies of the situations I listed above. But some other considerations give me pause as well.

Ive been teaching for 16 years now, mostly high school, but also middle school and college as well. Ive had a lot of opportunities to observe kids and their families. Whenever a child is troubled in some way, I have found that I usually need look no further than the parents to find the major cause.

One of the main correlations that I have seen over the years is between promiscuity on the part of teenage girls (and older) and the lack of a solid relationship with their fathers. Im not saying that having an emotionally distant or physically absent father always leads to emotional neediness and promiscuity by teenage girls, but when I notice this sort of behavior by girls, I almost always find the lack of a relationship with their fathers. They dont have a man in their life who provides them with the sort of true, unconditional and non-sexual love that a father can provide, and so they throw themselves at boys to get male attention any way they can get it. Will the lesbian parents be able to provide this sort of love? If one mother cant do it, will two mothers succeed? Likewise, boys who grow up without a father in their lives often turn out rather badly. Im sure weve all seen this.

Nor is a mothers role unimportant in the least. I think thats why in divorce cases there seems to be a presumption in favor of maternal custody. Can two men really provide children with true maternal care? I'm not even sure how you could design an experiment to test this hypothesis. It just seems self-evident to most people that even a man (or two) more sensitive and cuddly than Mr. Rogers still wouldn't be a good substitute for a mother.

I dont have studies at my fingertips to prove the realities that Im presenting here. But would you seriously deny the truth of what Im saying?

I know that things often turn out badly in heterosexual families, BUT, once again, those are not cases where somebody deliberately set out to have kids and then mess them up. The fact that bad things happen is not an excuse for doing bad things on purpose.

I don't know about any studies, but I do personally know someone who was the son of a lesbian who got divorced, and lived with his mother and her partner. He is extremely well adjusted, married, has kids, and is a doctor. He certainly more stable, and better adjusted than many people I know with heterosexual parents.

[JayDeist]

I think the questions raised are totally illogical and irrelevant. Everyone has a chance to mess up a child, or raise it right. I don't see how who you sleep with in private has anything to do with your parenting skills. Just because I may be good at missionary position with a woman, doesn't mean I know how to teach my kid proper ethics. How does being attracted to a man lessen that man's parenting skills? With the ratio of divorces of heterosexual couples, there's not much to stand on. With the amount of messed up kids that have been raised by heterosexual couples, how could anyone do any worse? Your sexual preference in the bedroom has nothing to do with how good, or how bad you may be able to raise a child. Maybe you should look for things like past history of domestic violence, past divorces, trouble with the law, etc. That is what I would base it on. And why on earth would you tell your kids you masturbated for any reason? Sounds like I would probably question your parenting skills, if that is how you would explain things to your kid.

[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.

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.

[jmac2112]

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.

Point 4 and 5 contain an implicit argument that governments should continue to promote traditional marriage for the good of society, and they outline the reasons that such marriage is good for society.

point 6: unsubstantiated malarkey, pure opinion, and worth thread of its own. too bad this the cornerstone of the argument, the best is preamble or false implication.

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

point 7: doesn't follow from 6.

How so?

And is it true that your objections are religious, but you seek a non religious argument for other reasons?

I find that my religious beliefs are in harmony with reason and fact. I also find that atheism simply doesnt explain my experience as a human being.