Same-sex marriage conversation: What do we know? Part 2
As Part 2 of my series on same-sex parenting research, I am posting the transcript of a presentation delivered at the Catholic University just over a year ago. A section on same-sex marriage was provided after Michael Bailey and prior to my speech at the same comference.
(Quotes removed at the request of Brad Wilcox)
Here is a more socially conservative scholar who comes to an assessment similar to Meezan and Rauch: we don’t know much and not really enough.
Some distinctions are arising in the comments on other threads that should be sharpened going forward. Same-sex adoption of special needs kids should be distinguished from use of reproductive technologies to create kids without hope of knowing a parent of one gender. Whereas some would say public policy should not make these distinctions; others would say it can and should. What data exist to inform these discussions? Are there data that could address these issues? Or is policy to be made on the basis of presuppositional principles? How do we decide which principles apply? I would say the best interest of children would be such a principle. If research finds, on balance, discouraging results from studies of same-sex parenting (however defined), do equal protection arguments for adults trump any potential child consequences? What if research finds that some outcomes are better for same-sex parenting and some are not, then how should public policy take mixed results into account?
Let’s keep talking…
How one approaches neutral data tells a great deal about that person. They can respond:
There is no data proving either harm or lack of harm so I will not intrude, or
There is no data proving either harm or lack of harm so I will I will seek to impose my opinions and values on others.
But of course, in this instance, the data isn’t neutral. Meezan and Rauch have provided that there is SOME evidence of lack of harm and NO evidence of harm. All that Wilcox provided was speculation and guessing.
I could counter Wilcox’ guesswork by suppositions of my own.
For example, I might suppose that those same-sex relationships that deliberately bring a life into the world would be:
more careful to provide roll models,
more anxious to parent in a healthy way,
more sensitive to psychological issues,
far more prepared emotionally and financially,
and possessing of greater family stability.
I might suppose that any old random lesbian couple that deliberately set out to be a parent would provide a healthier, happier, more stable citizen than would, for example, Jamie Lynn Spears.
Why would my guesswork be any less valid than Wilcox’s?
There are many flaws to this…but where to begin?
How about his assumptions:
“one point that I would make just to begin with is that obviously kids who are being raised in same-sex households are not getting the benefit of having parents of two sexes.”
There are a few problems with this. One is that this is a piece on same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, Brad seems unaware of the fact that in many areas, same-sex couples can legally jointly adopt both here and abroad. Also, Brad seems unaware that same-sex couples are already raising children…the issue he might want to raise in light of the issue of same-sex marriage, is that now that two parents of the same-sex can legally adopt in many areas, and are legally related to that child, why are we denying the parents a legal relationship to each other?
How do we allow two parents of the same-sex to be each legally related to a child but not legally related to each other? This seems counterintuitive to those interested in family…for the purposes of insurance, benefits, social security upon death of a parent, etc..
Brad also mentions reproductive technology:
“I also would point out that these families often times now are being formed very deliberately with assisted reproductive technology. And so, what you have is that kids are being deliberately created without a mother and father…”
Would Brad be supportive of same-sex couples who use reproductive technology, where the father is known and a part of the child’s life? Likely not.
Opposite-sexed couples, single women, and couples-who-will-divorce all use reproductive technology. Tackling the issue of single-parenthood, paternal (or maternal) abandonment, divorce, etc…all seem to be issues Brad may want to focus on. Does he suggest restricting medical technology to be available only for some or restrict childbearing?
Ultimately all of Brad’s arguments fail - not only because of their lack of merit as they stand, but because his arguments are based on arguments around same-sex parents. Same-sex couples are often legally parents already. His argument actually makes the importance of same-sex marriage all the more pressing.
Same-sex couples have overwhelmingly been shown over and over again to raise healthy, well-adjusted children comparable to their heterosexual counterparts (if you want studies, let me know…I’d be happy to post them). Brad’s argument is ill-informed.
Why should same-sex couples marry? If we truly believe that men and women should be granted equal rights under the law, and the ONLY reason I cannot marry someone is because of their sex…then that violates a fundamental principle and constitutes sex discrimination. The right to marry isn’t based on whether you are gay or straight - orientation is not a criteria of opposite-sexed marriage.
JAG,
I’m going to disagree with you there.
While it is true that closeted persons frequently marry persons of the opposite sex - almost invariably resulting in difficulty and pain and quite often the severing of families, it is not ture that orientation (or acknowledged orientation) is not a criterion for opposite-sex marriage.
Quite often opposite-sex marriages which involve one gay person are assumed to be invalid or fraudulent.
Take, for example, immigration. Should ICE determine that one party is gay, that would be grounds for prosecution for fraud. Marry a straight foreigner, and you could go to jail
So too are inheritances challenged. Should the non-wealthy party happen to be gay, any willed inheritance can be assumed to be based on fraud. He “didn’t realy love her” and “he married her for her money” are claims that would hold up well in court if he were shown to be gay.
Even in the dissolution of marriage, orientation can come into play. It is not without reason that when Renee Zellweger cited “fraud” as the reason for the dissolution of her marriage to Kenny Chesney, the first assumption of most was that Kenny is gay.
Anti-gays love to say, “you can get married, but only to a person of the opposite sex”.
But in truth, a gay person cannot marry anyone at all.
There’s a lot here to comment on. I’ll make a few breif observations.
First, thank you Warren for agreeing that “Same-sex adoption of special needs kids should be distinguished from use of reproductive technologies to create kids without hope of knowing a parent of one gender.”
As for your questions on public policy dealing with the latter, (e.g. “If data find, on balance, discouraging results from studies of same-sex parenting (however defined), do equal protection arguments for adults trump any potential child consequences?”), I would offer a simple ethical model:
Why should single people or gay couples even be allowed to take advantage of reproductive technologies when there is no medical problem with their reproductive function? This issue here is a social problem, not a medical problem. The reason Susan and Jane are unable to become pregnant is because they aren’t even trying. Because that would mean… “oh, it’s just too yucky to even think about!” Sterilizing human reproduction in a laboratory setting does not in any way reduce the heterosexuality of that event — it serves other purposes altogether. Some are medical, some are social.
Brad Wilcox also makes a very valid point about family diversity. While it’s plainly obvious that “parents with different sexes have somewhat distinctive talents when it comes to the childrearing enterprise”, many — many who even proclaim support for “diversity” in all its forms — would still approve of depriving children of one of the most natural forms of diversity around. As if suddenly “diversity” doesn’t matter.
I’ve often found it quite peculiar, and perhaps a bit disingenuous, that many of those who will insist that gender doesn’t matter a whit when it comes to the child+parent relationship are the same ones who will insist that it’s the most important thing in the world when it comes to the spousal relationship. I think that attitude is extremely self-serving, and all too convenient.
I wonder how Kate and Ally would respond? (Does anyone remember that American sitcom?) Two women (not gay) raising children together and in the same household.
Warren, I thought your intention with these posts was to discuss the available scholarly research on this topic. Wilcox isn’t presenting any research — he’s pontificating. I can pontificate too. This seems off-topic.
When data are sparse, you look to analogous situations. As someone pointed out on another thread, even same-sex parenting proponents stipulate that kids do best, on average, when raised with their married mom and dad. Lots of studies (maybe not 10k, but many) point to this conclusion when kids are compared with single parent homes, divorced homes, etc. What we cannot sort out as yet is whether or not one of the potent factors in these differences is the two-gendered nature of the married moms and dads. Or on the other hand, is it that there are two parents and they are happy together and gender doesn’t matter?
And so, Wilcox’s concerns are reasonable, in my opinion, based on the observations we already have regarding optimal conditions for raising children. And they are actually not that far away from Meezan and Rauch’s measured thoughts when they suggest we study the matter before, as they say, betting the country on the experiment.
In my prior post, I hoped to get some comment about Meezan and Rauch’s suggestions for a regional experiment. I don’t recall any.
I wish I had time to properly respond. Unfortunately I’m out of town with family and there is a lot of distractions. My partner and I have sole custody of his 9 year old son from his previous marriage. Obviously, as with any parents, we don’t want to deprive our child of the best life possible. According to teachers, counselors and others, he’s a happy, healthy, well-adjusted kid.
Mr. Wilcox intones that children being raised in same-sex homes don’t get to see parents negotiating the challenges of marriage. Hmmmm…perhaps. What our child does get to see is his parents negotiating the challenges of a committed relationship, just like he would see if his parents were opposite-sex. Much like my own parents who just celebrated 40 years of marriage and have worked through some trying times, he sees us committed to working together through the trying times. Just because we aren’t “married” doesn’t mean we are somehow less committed either to our relationship or the rearing of our child.
I welcome studies of families like mine! Having spent the past week watching my child interact with my siblings kids (his cousins), I can say that he seems to face the same challenges they do and interacts no differently than they do. A week in a house with 5 boys under the age of 9 has been almost enough to drive one insane. It’s also been one of the most encouraging things for me to witness. My nephews are amazing kids that will go far. So will my child!
When I’ve got more time to digest this post, I’ll hopefully come back and address the issues raised. Thanks for keeping the conversation going.
j.
Thanks for posting Dr. Wilcox’s presentation, I’ve been wanting to read it and was afraid I wouldn’t be able to.
Not surprisingly :), I disagree with Dr. Wilcox’s arguments on the matter.
For the most part he uses what I like to refer to as the “for the children” argument against gay marriage. There are 2 problems with this argument.
1st, children are not a requirement of marriage in any state in the US. No state asks about it, or requires any form a fertility test prior to marriage. Except AZ (possibly others) which has one case where the couple must prove one of them is infertile in order to be allowed to marry. This is the requirement for 1st cousins to be allowed to marry in AZ. Additionally, all states allow couples who are not capable of having children or adopting to marry. Thus this “for the children” argument does not fit the facts. So while children may benefit from marriage, clearly, this benefit is not the primary (or even significant) reason for civil marriage in this country.
However, lets examine this concern for children voiced by Dr. Wilcox (and others opposed to gay marriage). Gay couples are raising children in this country (through adoptions, ivf, previous opposite-gender relationships etc). And whether Dr. Wilcox (et. al) like or not, their numbers are growing. Now, wouldn’t these children be better off if their parents were married (Dr. Wilcox seemed to make a strong argument for this)? I certainly think so. It seems to me if Dr. Wilcox really where so concerned about children, he’d be pushing for gay marriage, not arguing against it.
Seems to me that there are many assumptions being made.
1. Man/woman is better than man/man or woman/woman
….does that side up with black children are better off with black homes?, ADD’s with parents that have the same disability?? Like with like??? Or do we put only those children who are definetly gay with gay parents?
2. That relationships are viewed only through one’s own home and in isolation
…. are children allowed to go over to their friends’ homes and see how their families and parents interact?? Or do we trap them in houses and never let them out
3. The divorce rate is at 50% - and guess what ? That means even if a child is adopted into a man/woman home they are going to experience divorce and a single parent home at some time (not your perfect scenario)
Too many assumptions made that just are unrealistic and not considering the variety of family experiences that can and do occur and that the variety can be as rewarding and vital as any (so long as it is stable, loving, caring etc…)
Where was Jesus’ father??? Seems he had sort of left the family - either through death or something else??? Just speculating. If the ‘holy’ family model was disrupted - what does that say about our assumptions.
Mary, please.
1. Man/woman is better than man/man or woman/woman
Obviously, because without man/woman would wouldn’t even be able to debate “parenting” at all. Sexual orientation is irrelevant to the reproductive system and you know this. Race? ADD? It’s as if you’re suggesting that girls should be raised by women and boys by men — when what you know is that what is being suggested is that since we are all the result of one man and one woman, we should be raised by one of each.
2. That relationships are viewed only through one’s own home and in isolation
We all learn from external sources, families of friends and neighbors, yet we also have a private and intimate window into our own families that gives us a clearer perspective than any other. But the intimate window of the “two moms” or “two dads” scenario is significantly lacking in diversity — which is always desired when trying to form a clear perspective. An uncle is not a father, nor should be be asked to pretend to be.
3. The divorce rate is at 50% - and guess what ? That means even if a child is adopted into a man/woman home they are going to experience divorce and a single parent home at some time (not your perfect scenario)
First, the divorce rate is actually quite a bit lower than 50%. Second, many divorces happen after the child leaves home. Third, did you make a typo here or are you really suggesting that all couples who adopt children are going to divorce? Hopefully a typo. Still, what’s your point here?
Then, your comment about “too many assumptions made that just are unrealistic” being followed by speculation about what ever happened to Jesus’s father Joseph is just plain odd. As if one set of speculative assumptions can negate another?
Finally, does your list of positive family attributes (rewarding and vital … stable, loving, caring etc) deliberately omit “diverse”? Or do you think that a diversity of gender perspectives is not important to the upbringing of little boys and girls?
Considering that a little boy will only ever become a Father, and will never ever become a Mother, one might conclude that it would be a good thing for him to have one of his own while growing up.
Warren,
Really? Could you have picked a more biased commenter?
I have recently visited my parents’ home and participated in a family reunion. My sister, who recently divorced her husband, was there too with her 2 and a half year daughter. My niece is a burst of life, she needs on average at least four people to sustain an endurance trial of playing, singing and running around. But I have noticed that she is mostly interested in playing with me (I am a man in my late 20s, remember?), a role which was favourably ascribed to her father some time ago. She is not so interested in her grandfather’s tokens of affection and much less in her grandmother’s attempts to win her attention. Now, I’m not particularly good at interacting with kids, in fact I’m just as good at it as I am at dancing, where zombies perform better. However, my niece succeeds in drawing me in her games and she is most happy when she does that.
I have a deep voice, just like her father, and when I talk she becomes very attentive, she starts to look at my legs or at my hands as if she is ‘recording’, comparing or making associations. My sister, who has a hard time dealing with her daughter’s unbridled energy and downright rebelliousness, sometimes has to resort to all sorts of tricks to get her daughter into doing something. But to our amazement, her daughter is easier to convince if I talk to her. When her father was together with her mother, my niece was mostly trying to win his attention and conceded easily to do something that benefitted her (like eating her food or getting dressed) if her father told her so. It seems that the presence of a man from the family who bears some resemblance to her father and whom she trusts makes her very happy, trying to get his attention more than any other’s and reducing rebellious attitude in his presence.
I have noticed that power relations in the family can influence gender appropriation in some children. All observations — including this one — from my own family and my relatives’ families had me thinking that there could be a sort of gender imprinting process, in which power relations between parents’ genders can pitch a child’s relation to gender, according to his/her relation to each parent and everyone’s temperament. Children seem to differentiate between parents, according to how they assume tasks or how they respond to meet their needs. Having the ‘complete set’ of genders as parents seems to be for a child a primal experience of what each gender is and how their interaction could be balanced.
That’s why I support the view that since the reproductive pair of genders that become parents is the reference point, we should assume that their role in rearing the child cannot be separated from their role in having the child. I don’t think nature separated reproduction from any role in child nurturing — this debate is generated by our own cultural distinctions (and we know that some of our cultural practices go against nature’s ways). Of course, where children have already been deprived of parents, any type of adult or union between adults that are fit for parenting can provide a better growing up environment than an institution. However, where option for fit opposite-sex parents is available, priority should be given to them.
Warren,
I would say the best interest of children would be such a principle.
I agree with this but the data should be free of religious meddling! AND, the data that exists shows us that same sex parents ARE able to raise happy, healthy and well-adjusted kids. AND, gay parents are currently raising children as we speak, so my question goes out again: HOW can we best help these parents raise these children????? Does anyone care to answer this or are we going to continue to pretend that gay parents don’t exist? Estimates that I’ve seen show that anywhere between 1 - 6 million kids are being raised by gay parents.
Warren -
You stated “Lots of studies (maybe not 10k, but many) point to this conclusion when kids are compared with single parent homes, divorced homes, etc. ” Of course this is true, and the data shows this overwhelmingly. You are making a classic turn of hand by comparing heterosexual couples with single parents and divorced homes rather than same-sex couples. When children of “same-sex couples” are compared with those of “heterosexual couples,” the data is not in your favor…and overwhelmingly shows that children of same-sex couples do as well as those of their heterosexual counterparts.
Mary -
You make some solid points. One that I agree with (and had suggested on another thread) is that those who believe that children in a heterosexual household will necessarily have the benefits of two parents (note - I did not say a “mother and father,”) are a bit out of line with the data.
Heterosexuals often forget that many children are born out of wedlock (often raised by a single parent), and many are raised by single parent through divorce. The model of being raised by two biological parents is likely more rare than common of all children created…but I’d love to have the numbers on that.
Marty -
“Considering that a little boy will only ever become a Father, and will never ever become a Mother, one might conclude that it would be a good thing for him to have one of his own while growing up.”
I disagree…a boy might have to be many things to a child. I am assuming by “father” you mean specific gender roles that men typically behave according to, right? I would suggest that your biological sex has little to do with “limiting” your scope of knowledge and breadth of understanding of what both parents often contribute. Unfortunately, there are many men out there raising children on their own.
Marty,
I’ve often found it quite peculiar, and perhaps a bit disingenuous, that many of those who will insist that gender doesn’t matter a whit when it comes to the child+parent relationship are the same ones who will insist that it’s the most important thing in the world when it comes to the spousal relationship.
I can’t speak for everyone when I say this, but I don’t believe its a matter of whether or not gender matters. I think gender does matter, I just don’t believe that Opposite Sex Marriages are the only healthy environments in which to raise children.
Warren,
I think what Timothy said above should be repeated - that Meezan and Rauch found no evidence of harm. After reading their study I’m having a hard time understanding how you can compare this conservative scholar to Meezan and Rauch. Their study showed NO HARM and this guy is just speculating. I DO understand that they both believe more needs to be known.
Jayhuck, and others have asked: gay parents are currently raising children as we speak, so my question goes out again: How can we best help these parents raise these children?
It’s a valid question, but needs to include a bit more:
How can we help those that exist without encouraging any more deliberately motherless or fatherless families? Yes, we do need to help children who have been shortchanged one of their natural parents, but we should do so in a way that discourages the shortchanging of any more.
Jag, you’re doublespeaking: Unfortunately, there are many men out there raising children on their own.
Yes, and not one of them is a Mother.
Marty,
How can we help those that exist without encouraging any more deliberately motherless or fatherless families?
That is your opinion, but I would say how can we help those that exist AND how can we encourage more couples: gay or straight, to develop more nurturing and loving homes for their children.
Evan,
However, where option for fit opposite-sex parents is available, priority should be given to them.
Why? The research doesn’t support this so I’m assuming you are stating your opinion?
Evan,
Your anecdote is interesting and does illustrate a good point.
But we cannot set policy based on anecdote. And to date the research seems to suggest that same-sex parenting is as good as opposite-sex parenting in meeting the needs of children. This may seem to contradict your personal experience with your niece, but it does seem - according to the best evidence we have - to be true.
I don’t know if this is relevant to you but I too, for some unknown reason, have a way with kids. I don’t think I’m possessed of great patience or any particular skill but when I was a Junior Church teacher I could get a room full of unruly 3 to 6 year olds to behave and participate. My biggest challenge was a developmentally disabled kid who no one - especially his two-parent heterosexual parents - could control. He delighted in me. He would do anything I asked - if I was smart about it.
I also dealt with two children whom we later found were being molested by their father. The girl was bossy, demanding, and a know-it-all. The boy was introverted and silent. Somehow I kept them included and participating.
But I would not want to base policy on any assumptions that could flow from that experience. I suppose I could argue that gay men are better able to handle the unruly or better able to control a room full of wild children (OK, not all were wild). I do know that a great many gay men are very successful teachers.
But I don’t know that there is any necessary connection between orientation and child corralling abilities. So I can’t extrapolate my single experience and assume it applies to a greater population.
Marty,
I’m curious. Do you even care about what the research says? Is there ANY amount of research that would have any impact on your opinion?
Warren,
I started to respond to Rauch’s proposed experiment, but didn’t post it.
Sure, I’d like to see the experiment conducted. But I don’t see it’s relevance to telling us whether same-sex couples make good parents.
I am not sure it would prove anything whatsoever about the abilities of same-sex parents to raise children. Nor does it seem to propose such a test.
It would, however, measure what civil protection (marriage, civil union, nothing) contribute best to those same-sex families that have children. It seems the only factor that varies between the states is the structure - so that is all it could measure.
Personally, because I believe in marriage, I would like to see such a study. I believe it would confirm that same-sex marriage is good for kids.
But if we were to look at the other question, we would have to select some state(s) in which all things are equal and randomly (as best possible) track a sample of kids in same-sex families and a sample of kids in opposite-sex families and see if there was any developmental or other differences. As a prospective, long-term, statistically valid, representative test would take some time, I think the conclusive answer is still a ways out there.
Until then, we simply have to rely on the non-comprehensive, limited, and not fully representative samples we have. And because they do seem to suggest that same-sex parenting is at least as good as opposite-sex parenting, we will have to tentatively and perhaps hesitantly assume that this is the case. To assume the opposite would stand logic on its head and place bias ahead of observation.
Marty -
You stated:
“Jag, you’re doublespeaking: Unfortunately, there are many men out there raising children on their own.
Yes, and not one of them is a Mother.”
Perhaps you missed the point. You implied that men only need be prepared to be “fathers,” which I assumed (maybe falsely so, feel free to correct) meant the “traditional roles” that men are often placed in. In stating that there are many men raising children on their own, my implication was that these men are attempting to do the job of both parents - sometimes with success, othertimes not. To imply that boys “will only become fathers,” is a bit errant. I don’t see single parenthood as an ideal for any person - the parent or the child - but it is a reality for many.
Men may be asked to be many things that traditionally they have not been as involved in…like motherhood.
I see two parents as ideal, we do not differ on that… and the studies support this…gay or straight, these couplings seem to have the best child outcomes when compared to their single peers.
Male couples who are parents can arguably be as “mothering” as a woman, and as “fathering” as a father. The flux and variation in how competent, nurturing, etc..a “mother” is varies greatly. I don’t know of any studies which have shown that two men raising a child cannot adequately “mother” them. If you do, I’d genuinely be interested in a read.
For all the pomp and circumstance, the truth is, many biological parents fail miserably in “mothering” and “fathering,” (although some are arguably fantastic as well). I have no hesitation is saying that parents through IVF, adoption, etc (hetero or same-sex)…can be fantastic parents (as well as poor ones). Being an adequate mother or father has less to do with biology, it seems, than many other variables.
The two parent model of child-rearing (hetero and homo) has been seen in the majority of literature as equally effective in raising children. That, in and of itself, may say what true “mothering” and “fathering” is all about.
Also, I would contend, it serves the child well that if they are legally related to both parents…to allow those parents to be legally related to each other- to give them both the privileges and responsibilities that come with parenthood, but also to most optimally provide adequately for the child should a parent pass (with social security to the surviving partner, etc..).
Timothy Kincaid asks me: Do you even care about what the research says? Is there ANY amount of research that would have any impact on your opinion?
No. As I stated in part 1 of this series:
That’s my position and I’m sticking to it.
JAG, I think you are very, very wrong. While there may be some element of truth to your claim that “Being an adequate mother or father has less to do with biology, it seems, than many other variables“, I’m hard pressed to see how 2 effeminate men or 2 butch women are going to provide the depth and breadth of coverage than your average man and woman together can provide. Diversity and all that.
I should probably have corrected the sentence that I just pasted from the previous thread. It should have originally read:
“To claim that “two moms” or “two dads” (convienently aligned to support one’s “sexual oreintation” or “gender bias”) are equal to “mom and dad” is to deprive children of the equality inherent in Mother Nature’s design for humanity. “
Marty,
Wow, that’s a pretty hard-lined position there. So where does that leave people like me? I’m intersexed. I guess I can’t be a Father figure OR a Mother figure. You keep talking about Mother Nature’s design, but that sort of black and white makes everyone like me incapable of being either to a child.
Technology is progressing quite quickly, they can already turn an egg into a sperm, this would allow two lesbians to both genetically be the parents. It won’t be that long before they can do the same for gay men with a surrogate womb.
You also seem to be saying that all gay men are effeminate and all lesbians are butch. Wow…just…wow.
Children are deprived of the ‘design’ of one man one woman all the time. Divorce, death, single-parenthood. When I was growing up, not that long ago I’m only in my 20’s in my classes having a mother AND a father was the minority. The majority of my classmates lived with one parent, or one parent and a step-parent that they almost inevitably hated.
Timothy,
That story from my personal experience was given to illustrate the limits of rational assessments in a life-nurturing experience. I don’t know why my niece feels happiest when a man who resembles her father is around and I seriously doubt that science can capture that in any methodological way without being merely sufficient. We can afford to let ourselves guided by thoroughly rational assessments where they are most welcome, but in at least two realms they can irreversibly go wrong: politics and child rearing. Just as in politics reason is just instrumental, but it’s not the guiding force that overrules our moral judgment, in childrearing we can only hope to use reason to come up with incremental improvements in their nurturing. This problem is not one among others, that we can deal with just like any other — it’s how we call children to human life that can shape their future and ours too. It’s too critical to let neutral science tilt the balance wherever its present paradigms permit. Results are more far-reaching than the unpredictable pace of knowledge.
All I’m saying is that we are not the makers of our nature and we should not act as if we really were decision-makers in what life should look like according to how far we can see right now. We should play safe and see where we’re going. My position is sufficiently inclusive, I believe, to allow some adults or same-sex unions of adults to adopt children, where no opposite-sex alternative is available.
PS. For other examples concerning the state of science opposites nature, you can check a recent statement from a team of scientists, who are honest enough to acknowledge that our scientific tools, though limited in their penetratingness, yield too complex data for our immediate understanding. This is just a problem of biological misinstruction, but do we know at least as much about the role of genders?
Pathia, you have my sympathies for the disability you were born with. My comments do not apply to someone in your condition.
Technology is progressing quite quickly, they can already turn an egg into a sperm, this would allow two lesbians to both genetically be the parents. It won’t be that long before they can do the same for gay men with a surrogate womb.
But why should anyone need or want to do that? Is there something “wrong” with the egg of a lesbian that it should be turned to a sperm? Aren’t we just trying to validate gender bias here, rather than correct a medical condition?
Children are deprived of the ‘design’ of one man one woman all the time. Divorce, death, single-parenthood.
Yes, it happens all the time, and it is always tragic. Lets agree to avoid creating more tragedies for children okay? Sexual orientation is certainly no excuse for creating still more motherless or fatherless children.
When I was growing up, not that long ago I’m only in my 20’s in my classes having a mother AND a father was the minority. The majority of my classmates lived with one parent, or one parent and a step-parent that they almost inevitably hated.
Again, my sympathies for your situation. What you describe is certainly a tragedy, but thankfully it is not the case where I grew up, nor where I live now.
Lets work together to reverse this terrible trend, rather than embrace it and encourage it.
Evan,
When is an opposite-sex alternative NOT technically available? Aren’t they always available? That doesn’t mean they will adopt though.
Not all gay couples adopt either, some have surrogate mothers or use other methods.
As for playing it safe, if society always “played it safe”, positive changes would never happen. I think your idea of playing it safe and mine are completely different. I think we HAVE played it safe enough.
Marty,
Well, okely dokely.
If that wasn’t so offensive, it would be funny.
Ya know, Marty, you can delight in your own ignorance and dismiss any evidence that contradicts your presumptions. That is entirely your right.
Of course it also means that no one will take you seriously.
Evan,
If I read you correctly you seem to be saying that your positions on politics and child rearing are irrational. And that logic should yeild to moral judgment in those areas.
While that may clarify some of your positions, it is not a ideology that I share.
Marty -
You stated:
“I’m hard pressed to see how 2 effeminate men or 2 butch women are going to provide the depth and breadth of coverage than your average man and woman together can provide.”
I’m not really sure how many gay people you know when statements like these are made.
I know gay women who are well-rounded paired with other gay women who are well-rounded in different ways bringing a breadth and depth of experiences, interests, and principles to the table - qualities that are often both traditionally masculine and feminine. Women are diverse. The same applies to men, and heterosexual couples. I’ve seen hetero couples where the man runs and squeals when he sees a spider…and his wife comes and kills it, comforting him after his fright. Under your logic, he wouldn’t be an adequate father or man? Let’s not get into stereotyping.
Evan -
Same-sex marriage is not a “social experiment,” it is giving legal rights and responsibilities to couples that already co-exist with you in society.
“But why should anyone need or want to do that? Is there something “wrong” with the egg of a lesbian that it should be turned to a sperm? Aren’t we just trying to validate gender bias here, rather than correct a medical condition?”
I think you miss the point. This allows a lesbian couple to have one of the pair be the genetic father, rather than simply taking donor sperm. The child will literally be their full complete genetic offspring.
Procedures like this are my only hope for having a child directly. My condition and/or the surgeries (It’s impossible to say what might have been had I not been mutilated) that were done to me as an infant have left me sterile. I will adopt if I can, but outside of my intersexism my genes are quite healthy, I’ve avoided all the bullets my parents DNA gave to me, my perfectly fertile brothers on the other hand are genetic landmines of high blood pressure, diabetes and various other conditions.
Jag,
Don’t you know all lesbians are taken right from the Well of Lonliness novel?? And all gay men model themselves after Judy or Quinten Crisp??
Some people - huh???
Mary,
I just wanted to say I, like Jag, have really appreciated your responses on this thread. Happy New Year!
Ooops - wrong thread - LOL! Well, anyway Mary, I have appreciated your responses - here AND on the Same-sex parenting thread!
Mary -
“Don’t you know all lesbians are taken right from the Well of Lonliness novel?? And all gay men model themselves after Judy or Quinten Crisp??”
Well of course they are! (you are very funny)
But on a less humorous note, I always appreciate that you see gay men and lesbians as individuals. Your unique history and position, I think, often gives you some great perspective on both sides of the argument.
This feigned offense from those of you who intentionally miss my point is very cute.
The point is that 2 men (whether they be straight, gay, bi, masculine, femme, or any combination) have exactly ZERO firsthand experience in being a little girl, a teenage girl, a young woman, or a woman.
If what we bring to the table of “parenthood” is our life experiences, I am 100% certain that the combined experiences of one average man and one average woman will have a greater breadth and depth than those of any two men, or any two women.
How any good liberal who was committed to diversity could argue otherwise is beyond me. Unless of course, they were just making excuses for their own gender bias.
Marty,
This feigned offense from those of you who intentionally miss my point is very cute.
Let me assure you, the offense is not feigned.
And just because I haven’t had any experience being a girl or a young woman has nothing to do with me being a good parent to one who is.
I know many women who have daughters who are terrible parents.
Pathia,
We’re veering off the edge of the topic here, so let me close out this part of the conversation with:
I do have compassion enough for those with real medical fertility problems, such as yourself, to permit certain reproductive technologies to be used. I know many do not. Your case, being very atypical, may require more examination than the typical man and wife who request simple IVF. But that is a topic for another thread.
My complaint is not with the medically infertile who may require assistive reproductive technologies to allow them to reproduce, but with the socially infertile who misuse those technologies for primarily 2 purposes: to ensure that the resulting child does not have any rightful claim to the man who “fathered” him (or mother who bore him, as the case may be); and to allow the “patient” to clinically avoid having intimate relations with a member of the opposite sex — something I like to call the “yuck factor”.
I think those who use ARTs should at a minimum be required to show evidence of a real medical fertility problem, and those who would use them merely to deprive a child of a mother or a father are guilty of something cruel and unusual.
Perhaps we can continue our conversation on ARTs for the intersexed at another time, in a more appropriate thread. Thanks.
“If what we bring to the table of “parenthood” is our life experiences, I am 100% certain that the combined experiences of one average man and one average woman will have a greater breadth and depth than those of any two men, or any two women.”
You still haven’t answered my question Marty. Really all you did was offend me and disabled people by comparing us to them. Intersex is certainly not a case of disability, it is not appropriate for either to compare them in that fashion, apples and oranges.
I quite literally had aspects of both girlhood and boyhood. In my case it happened due to my abnormal hormones, but I don’t think only intersexed people have this merged experience. Why is it so hard to imagine someone being able to comprehend, instruct and raise a child just because it wasn’t a direct personal experience?
We certainly don’t require gym teachers to be former professional athletes or history teachers to be war veterans. Is it helpful? Of course, but is it seen as mandatory? No. If you think only someone who has had direct experience with something can teach and educate about it, that is severely limiting.
It seems I’m unable to reach you, so I’ll just finish with this and let you take it or ignore it as you will:
Jayhuck: just because I haven’t had any experience being a girl or a young woman has nothing to do with me being a good parent to one who is.
No one claimed you could not be a “good parent”. Only that because you have no firsthand experience with being a female, you will be unable to offer your daughter the kind of intimate wisdom a mother would be able to provide.
And if your sexual preference for men means that your daughter will have to go without such intimate maternal wisdom, that is your choice. But I disagree that your orientation is a good enough reason to deprive her of a mother. I think your reasoning is designed to serve your needs, not hers.
Pathia: Is it helpful? Of course, but is it seen as mandatory? No. If you think only someone who has had direct experience with something can teach and educate about it, that is severely limiting.
Oh I believe you. I could teach female biology as well as anyone. But you yourself said that it is “helpful” if I had firsthand experience in the matter. My experience with cramps, menstration, tampons, bikinis, date-rape, etc etc etc is “severely limited” and it always will be.
And I apologize if my comments about your situation were offensive to you, they were not meant to be. You may not consider your “sterility” and growing up with “abnormal hormones” to be a disability per se, but if it were not then you wouldn’t have any need for ARTs either. Your infertility is a real medical condition. Not so for Jayhuck, who merely doesn’t want to have a woman around the house.
Happy New Year to all!
Marty,
I think your reasoning is designed to serve your needs, not hers.
And I believe that your reasoning is designed to serve your needs as well Marty - not those of children.
Happy New year to you too
NOTE - I initially allowed and then removed the following comment. I am re-posting it because I realized that Jose did not know that references to Nazi’s as an analogy to people you disagree with will get your comments removed. So now, I am making this clear to those on this thread anyway. There was a response comment as well which I will now post. Warren Throckmorton
It s clear from many of the statements made by the homosexualists on this thread that the primary rationale for having children is self-centered rather than child-centered. Even the intersexed individual, Pathia, talks entirely from this perspective. It’s a question of what “I want” not what the child needs or what is best for the child. “What can I do to obtain a child? Can I manufacture the child through some Mengelian genetic technology? Who cares what that child might go through or how many have genetic problems from trying to obtain children from bizarre manipulations of two eggs or two sperm cells implanted in a womb or whatever.” That’s not even a consideration. We see it in sci-fi movies of aliens abducting genetic material and we are shocked. But it happens in real life and we justify it because it’s really all about what “I want.” Who cares if the child is deliberately missing a father or a mother. “I will do whatever I want that the law might permit.” And we are supposed to lament because the adult may not get what he/she wants.
Thanks Marty, you have made an excellent effort at trying to reason with these people but it cannot get through because their end is a concupiscent self-fulfillment and gratification that is far more powerful than reason and concern for children. The child for these people has essentially become a commodity without full intrinsic worth and value. Theirs is a political end to obtain their wants. That’s why they would just as readily manipulate genetic material a la Mengele as support aborting, disposing of the child for their convenience. It is no incidental that the culture of depravity works hand in hand with the culture of death. It is thoroughly self-centered regardless of how they twist and turn to fabricate self-justifying terminology distorting the meaning of words till we are left with nothing but gobbledygook by which, as with the ejected ink of an octopus, a confusing screen is produced by which they hope to fully fulfill their wants. But we see through it and very calmly inform them, “We see you,” even if they themselves have come to believe their contradictory constructions.
Evan, you say, “My position is sufficiently inclusive, I believe, to allow some adults or same-sex unions of adults to adopt children, where no opposite-sex alternative is available.”
I agree with this but when you say, “allow some adults,” I would specifically state the other options that would be preferable to same-sex couples adopting. This would be non-homosexual couples, triples, etc. Even staying in the adoption agency would be preferable.
Jose - Let me clarify that you meant Mendelian…
Jose:
Thank you so much for putting more words in my mouth. Seriously I question why I post here when this and insults about my medical history pretty much occur at least once per post.
I am speaking in hypotheticals. I’ll have you know that I am PRO-LIFE. You want to know why? Multiple doctors advocated to my mother to ABORT ME. I would never undergo the treatments necessary to have a child if it involved IVF, because I don’t believe in it. I am Roman Catholic.
All of this is purely hypothetical, because I am well aware of my mental instability. I am not a suitable child rearer, period. However, I do know some intersexed people who are not as screwed up as I am. They would all make wonderful parents, but they simply don’t fit into the category of male or female. They are completely left out by what Marty is talking about.
Again, don’t put words into my mouth. PLEASE.
Homosexualists??
Pathia - No need to go any further into your personal situation. I appreciate your candor.
Let me say to all to think through the Scriptural injunction to speak the truth in love as well as to let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man. Also, the tongue is a flaming fire issuing blessings and cursings. James exhorts the believer not to curse those who are made in God’s image.
I thought references to nazism are prohibited???
a la Mengele?? That is strong language to paint a broad brush over people who desire to raise children. The desire to produce offspring, care for and create a family does not end because a person is gay. Nor does it make one a monster.
To those who are gay, I apologize for the comment Jose has made about you and your desire to raise a family or adopt children. His comments that equate gays with Mengele are NOT the norm. While some christians may disagree about the value of gay parents, not many would make such a grotesque remark meaning to intentionally hurt another person.
Dear Pathia,
With your explanation of your views I do believe we have had a miscommunication and we are really much closer in our positions than we are with several others here who appear to be deliberately distorting what I’m saying. I was not aware of your background as stated in your 77741 comment.
I was merely responding, perhaps reacting to your statement:
“Technology is progressing quite quickly, they can already turn an egg into a sperm, this would allow two lesbians to both genetically be the parents. It won’t be that long before they can do the same for gay men with a surrogate womb.”
It appeared to me that you were endorsing these procedures which I see as Megeleian-like experimentation with human beings. I sometimes use the King Herod slaughter of the innocents as an analogy. I think that you as a Catholic and I as a Mennonite would be on the same page on this issue.
It is important that we continue the dialogue because when communicating in brief comments it is easy to read more into a statement than what is actually being said or intended. Your “hypothetical” views are worthy of discussion even if the actual practices would not be consistent with Christian teaching. We need to wrestle with these concepts so that they may make greater intellectual and emotional sense to us.
You can see how Mary likes to make ridiculous, inflammatory distortions of my words, tantamount to outright lies, by saying I “equate gays with Mengele.” This is nonsense and heterosexuals are by far more involved in these procedures than homosexuals. It is the murderous procedures that you and I and the Catholic Church vehemently oppose as we recognize that the genetic manipulation to create human beings (two eggs, two sperm), the destruction of embryos, the dismemberment of unborn children, etc., cannot be acceptable practices of any civilization. We must take action to outlaw such activities, starting with the overturning of Roe vs. Wade.
Pathia, we have a great mission that should keep us very involved throughout our lives.
Many blessings to you and let’s continue the conversation as a team.
Jose,
As has been discussed at length above, children do NOT fare better in institutional care than they do in same-sex families. Not by any measure of well being that is currently known.
For you to state otherwise illustrates that you are speaking only from a position of religious dogma, a statement of your personal faith that runs contradictory to the observable evidence.
You are entitled to your religious beliefs. But a wise society does not allow the religious beliefs of some to over-ride the beliefs of others, especially when they cannot be supported by anything other than declaration.
Otherwise, you might just a well claim that it is in the best interest of children to be sacrificed to the Crocodile God. That too is a religious belief. I give it the same level of credibility as I give your unsubstantiated dogmatic religious declarations.
Pathia -
Indeed, technology is progressing quickly…national geographic reported on an experiment in which they were able to use the genetic contents of two mouse eggs to produce an offspring. Here is the link if you are interested:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0421_040421_whoneedsmales.html
I’m not sure what this has to do with same-sex marriage, however. It seems we’ve gotten a bit off topic.
Jose -
Children can and are a part of many marriages, but they are not the reason why everyone marries (ex: the elderly or infertile), and certainly those who are not able to have children because they are never able to consummate the relationship (some inmates without conjugals, the disabled, etc.) also find something unique in the marital relationship that does not include children. While I agree that it should be a part of the conversation (for example, if we knew that same-sex couples could not parent, etc..), then it would indeed be more important. But since science has overwhelmingly found same-sex couples to be just as adequate as parents as their heterosexual peers, the act of reproduction seems less important - because it does effect many heterosexual couples and does not impede their ability to marry.
Same-sex couples in many places already adopt, are legally both related to the child…but are barred from legal relationship to each other - to me, this is not in the best interest of any child….and seems a bit backward.
In places where same-sex unions are legal (massachusetts, vermont, new jersey, )…what has this done to heterosexual marriage. I suppose I often hear the phrase that marriage needs to be “protected,” but I often wonder what people feel it needs to be protected from…
britney spears? divorce? domestic abuse?
Thanks for the link JAG.
Even the filename in the URL (whoneedsmales.html) alludes to the fact that this sort of research is not being driven by any medical necessity, but is in fact being driven by gender bias.
But since science has overwhelmingly found same-sex couples to be just as adequate as parents as their heterosexual peers, the act of reproduction seems less important
An overstatement, to say the least, but why don’t you want to talk about sexism? Is lesbianism an ethical reason to tell little Johnny that he has no father, only a redundant mother?
“The — and I would actually — I would suggest that really almost all this is really more in the way of kind of offering some hypotheses. There obviously have been some studies, and I’ll talk about those in a moment, but I think, really, in an important way, it’s really much more at the stage of hypotheses and thinking about the link between same-sex marriage and child outcomes.”
Dr. Wilcox is quite right in this assessment. The studies to date are all either fundamentally flawed so as their conclusions are suspect, or so few in number and sample size that it would be premature to offer a definitive answer to the question of child development in same-sex households.
The policy statement s by groups like the APA and others reinforce this conclusion. They are peppered with phrases like “studies to date” & “there is no evidence to suggest”.
These are all together different than saying “multiple wide ranging …comprehensive longitudinal,… have created a consensus among experts as to….”
This later terminology and consensus dose exist on the subject of family formation. Unfortunately it exists when comparing natural intact married families to all other adequately studied family forms. These forms don’t include same-sex parenting.
Mr Wilcox’s statement is the one of the cautious scientist who (rightfully) waits for the data to be gathered.
In this respect he reminds me of the thoughts represented well in this post by Sociology professor William Weston in the following post on his blog : “Gruntled Center” (a post you may find interesting & relevant)
http://gruntledcenter.blogspot.com/2006/03/gay-parent-research-full-of-holes.html
“Few researchers expect that same-sex couples will turn out to be bad parents. But it is very premature to conclude that their kids turn out the same in all respects as children of married parents.”
“My expectation is that same-sex couples will, as a group, score similar to parent/step-parent couples in overall kid outcomes.”
In places where same-sex unions are legal (massachusetts, vermont, new jersey, )…what has this done to heterosexual marriage.
Those places are:
Reciprocal Benefits - Hawaii
Domestic Partnerships - California, Maine, Washington, Oregon (currently challenged)
Civil Unions - Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey
Marriage - Massachusetts
The response so far:
Massachusetts was forced by the court. However last year they could not find 25% of the legislature to support an amendment to overturn marriage. It seems that heterosexual marriage did not collapse.
Vermont opted for civil unions when required by court to provide benefits. They are currently considering changing it to marriage and there is very little vocal oppositions. It seems heterosexual marriage did not collapse.
California has everything but the word “marriage”. The legislature has twice passed the bill to convert to marriage, but the Governor has vetoed it until the courts weigh in on whether a referendum based provision relates to in-state or out-of-state marriages. It seems that outside of Hollywood, heterosexual marriage did not collapse.
Connecticut and New Jersey both elected without judicial mandate to offer civil unions. They did so based on their observations of the successes in New England. It is expected that they will convert to marriage fairly soon. Though they’ve only been in place for a while, it seems heterosexual marriage did not collapse.
But you never know. Any minute now Massachusetts, which has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, could suddenly implode leaving its citizens running pell mell to divorce chapels. Little Johnny could say, “If Fred and Joe can get married then marriage has no value so I’m not marrying Suzy”. Flames from the pits of Hell could come erupting through Boston raining fire and brimstone down on the state.
But I doubt it.
There is a particular relationship between man and woman that is conjugal in that it joins a man and a woman in such a way that they have a sexual relationship that may lead to their having children. This conjugal relationship is consensual and therefore differentiated from rape. The man and the woman have a pleasurable attraction towards each other and they discover that there is a natural and perfectly corresponding match for their sexual organs as they embrace. Their different sexual organs complement each other. This is obvious to all human beings. The male sexual organ produces a sperm cell and the female sexual organ produces an egg which when combined a new human being may be conceived. This natural biological function is so amazing that it is often referred to as a “miracle.” It is astonishing, particularly to the mother who has borne this new human being in her womb for months and then gives birth to this person.
Throughout the world people have observed this relationship, and since a time so far back in prehistory that we cannot clearly determine when, societies have granted this relationship very special distinctions, honors, privileges and ceremonial blessings. Why have they done this? It is because societies have recognized that this relationship forms the nucleus of family life and society itself. It is the means by which society propagates itself and is consequently foundational in the preservation of the species, of humanity.
The names given to this relationship have of course varied in different societies through language variations and differences, but regardless of what it is called the relationship is special and thoroughly different from all other human relationships. The relationship itself remains the same regardless of what it is called and regardless of whether or not the name by which it is called is given to some other relationship.
Over the centuries and through different cultures societies have sought to honor this relationship only within certain conditions so that it is lifted above a merely bestial and prurient motivation. This has been done because of the realization that to be most helpful to society as a whole, the relationship must take on important responsibilities and obligations. Children must be raised properly so that they may be productive members of the community. Millenia of experiences have demonstrated to societies the importance of loyalty and faithfulness to bring about an harmonious, creative and productive social ideal. To honor and privilege this relationship particular standards of conduct for the relationship were instituted. These varied somewhat from culture to culture. Some standards were quite liberal while others rather harsh. Some societies insisted that the relationship be monogamous and not incestuous. Others did not. Almost all honored the relationship only if the persons were of childbearing/reproductive age, a clear indication of the emphasis placed on procreation.
The question before some societies today is whether or not they wish to honor and privilege this particular relationship as distinct from all other relationships or if they wish to see it as no more meritorious than any number of other partnerships or relationships.
Any minute now Massachusetts, which has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, could suddenly implode…
Having a low divorce rate isn’t neccesarily anything to brag about, when Massachusetts also has one of the lowest marriage rates. You cannot divorce someone you never bothered to marry.
Statistically, and by various surveys, Massachusans appear to take the institution of marriage less seriously than residents of most other states.
One might suggest that marriage had already imploded in Massachusetts, even before Goodridge came along. Begging the question is SSM a symptom or a disease?
Marty,
Do you have any references for your claim that Massachussetts has one of the lowest marriage rates?
And to be fair Marty (if your claim is true), we don’t know if the data on low divorce rates was adjusted for the fact that it allegedly has a low marriage rate!
First, — Happy New Year to all of you here!
My position is closer to the conservative critique of any politics based on pure reason. For instance, it is rational to reduce energy consumption in a home (for economic reasons) but if that can affect the health of the inhabitants, rational cutting cost is not an end in itself. Just the same, science can produce many rationally valid conclusions about child rearing, but I am quite sure science cannot define what is good for children. We have to filter these rational conclusions using our moral sense to come to a choice.
A propos of an earlier mention of a Nazi henchman, you can understand the baleful use of reason in politics by analysing Nazi politics, which were completely rational — ie they had an end (morally horrifying) and a choice of means (less than inhuman, since they brought statistical extermination of choice populations). Nazism lacked transcendence — they only had a mystique of human affirmation based on ideal race ideology which employed science to eliminate whatever was seen to be retrograde to their human-centred purposes (read ‘human’ as a choice race). It’s easy to see that reason unbridled by any moral considerations can produce atrocities, within different ranges.
Playing God with nature based on rational (limited) scientific questionnaires can produce results that confirm the (limited) data, but which completely does away with our past which tells us what we are, where we came from and how we survived until now. If that past of moral assumptions were completely wrong we would have never reached this point. Let’s not consider parenting as if we lived in a scientific utopia, where the sense of direction was given by scientific periodicals. The final decision must come from our moral sense. If opposite-sex parenting is not available, the moral choice would be to allow other types of parenting, if science does not indicate any significant harm, not the other way around. In this way, society must take the responsibility of allowing any other type of parenting than the opposite-sex one, although I’m sure some will resort to science reports to escape any such responsibility.
If someone would like to read an article that is probably a bit more objective on the history of marriage, here is one:
Marriage Article
Interestingly, in this same article, I found this quote:
“In 2004, the American Anthropological Association released this statement:[28]
The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.”
Jose,
In the United States, Civil marriage has nothing to do with the ability to procreate or raise children. No state requires any intention to raise children as a requirement for marriage. The state supports marriage because promoting long-term, stable relationships is good for society as a whole. To encourage these relationships, the state provides a variety of benefits and privileges to married couples.
Marriage in america has evolved from a relationship where the wife was little better than the property of her husband, to a relationship where both are equal partners. From relationships exclusive to only white couples to all races and inter-racial couples. I see no reason it shouldn’t continue to evolve to allow for gay couples as well.
–> As has been discussed at length above, children do NOT fare better in institutional care than they do in same-sex families. Not by any measure of well being that is currently known.
I think that orphanages have gotten a bad rap. Nowadays we do very well with small group homes for children in fostercare, especially with children who are older and for whom there is no viable adoption plan — in fact they may even be among the large portionof fosterkids who are not even be available for adoption.
Timothy, the courts did play prominent roles in each of the places with civil union status.
And, contrary to your predrawn conclusion, marriage is on the decline and nonmarital trends are on the incline in each of those jurisdictions.
That will adversely influence the family formation behavior of coming generations. The merger of SSM with marriage recognition (whether in the form of SSM in Massa. or CU elsewhere) locks-in negatives and locks-out protection and preference for the nature of marriage.
The sky did not fall where states have affirmed the man-woman criterion of marriage. There is no good reason to abolish that criterion, anywhere. Least of all where the well-being of children takes precedent over the adultcentric desires of adults.
Timothy, the courts did play prominent roles in each of the places with civil union status.
Not in New Jersey, Connecticut, or California.
Chairm said in post 78162:
Timothy, the courts did play prominent roles in each of the places with civil union status.
Really, what role did the courts play in the enactment of Civil Unions in CT?
That will adversely influence the family formation behavior of coming generations.
What are these “adverse influences”? and how have you determined they would have any effect?
The merger of SSM with marriage recognition (whether in the form of SSM in Massa. or CU elsewhere) locks-in negatives and locks-out protection and preference for the nature of marriage.
How does allowing gay couples the ability to marry effect straight marriages? What “negatives” are being locked in (and how)?
Ken you’re standing on quicksand.
–> In the United States, Civil marriage has nothing to do with the ability to procreate or raise children. No state requires any intention to raise children as a requirement for marriage.
Procreation within marriage is not compulsory. But when husband and wife enter the social institution, which society recognizes but which the state neither created nor owns, they consent to the nature of marriage, its core.
And at its core is 1) integration of the sexes — see the man-woman criterion, 2) contingency for Responsible Procreation — see the marriage presumption of paternity, and 3) these fundamentals combined as a coherent whole — see marriage, a social institution.
There are legal requirements but SSMers attack the nature of marriage and seek to abolish those requirements. For society to recognize marriage, it must recognize the nature of marriage, or else it will not be possible to distinguish marriage from other relationship types.
The boundaries around that core, the nature of marriage, are regulated by state authorities, because that regulatory power has been delegated to the state; however, no such delegation has been granted in regards to the core of marriage which is a foundational social institution of civil society. The government does not own civil society. The People have a government, not the other way around.
The proposed SSM merger amounts to the replacement of recognition of marriage’s core for recognition of some alternative relationship type or types.
So, in the context of procreation and raising one’s children, what is the core of the one-sexed arrangement or of the relationship type that you have in mind when you refer to “marriage”?
Well, it is clear that for any scenario of two dads or two moms there is a prerequisite of parental relinquishment. Either the dad or the mom is excluded in such scernarios. That, or the significance of the integration of fatherhood with motherhood is greatly diminished or even sidelined.
This is so whether we are speaking of adoption or of third party procreation. Neither is at the core of marriage; neither forms the core of Responsible Procreation; both are selelctively sex-segregative. Third party procreation, for example, is extramarital procreation even when the husband and wife partake of it. It is sex-segregative when either husband or wife is excluded — as in the case of two men or two women who’d use a supply of a 3rd party’s sperm or ova.
That is the inverse of the nature of marriage. Do you truly wish to abolish the special status of this? What good would that do society?
–>The state supports marriage because promoting long-term, stable relationships is good for society as a whole. To encourage these relationships, the state provides a variety of benefits and privileges to married couples.
Well, encouragement is one thing and tolerance is another. Likewise protection is a third way of treating various relationships.
Are we not here discussing the preference for a certain type of domestic arrangement? Sure we are. And marriage comes with lots of baggage that some folks want to discard. We expect that the man and the woman will form a sexual relationship; that the relationship needs to provide contingency for procreation; that the contingency supports both spouses, integrates fatherhood with motherhood, and entails the child’s parents sticking around to be, not just the biological progentiors, but also the socializers — the child’s responsible parents.
Barring dire circumstances or death, that’s the social expectation and that’s intrinsic to the social institution of marriage. There are nonmarital alternatives, sure, but there is no good reason to merge nonmarriage with marriage such that the nature of marriage is no longer shown preference.
If you think about it, we are really discussing line-drawing, making boundaries, that honor what society esteems.
We do not tolerate all types of relationships, as you surely must agree. But those we ban outright or discourage in various ways. Not all of this is about governmental intrusions, by the way. We should keep that in mind when discussing the significance of parenting in our society.
Okay, so we outlaw some arrangements and some relationships. But that which we do not outlaw, we tolerate, at minimum. We can disregard some types of relationships. That is, we can tolerate a diversity that excludes arrangements that cause harm — whether material harm or moral harm.
Some relationship types, though tolerated, are not worthy of protection. Some that are protected do not merit special status.
I think that the SSM type of scenario can be tolerated, of course, and is among a much broader category of relationship types that ought to be afforded protections.
But not preference. That is reserved for the conjugal relationship of husband and wife and the bond they form both with each other and with the children they create, should they recieved that blessing.
Would you destroy that preference? For what purpose? Based on what principle of justice?
–> Marriage in america has evolved from a relationship where the wife was little better than the property of her husband, to a relationship where both are equal partners. […] I see no reason it shouldn’t continue to evolve to allow for gay couples as well.
That’s a distorted view of the history of marriage. No matter. even if we suppose it were accurate, that does not weigh in favor of selective sex segregation. For there to be equality, both sexes are required. Otherwise, we would have achieved equality within marriage by removing the man and allowing only female-female unions. On the other hand, would polygamy be more equal if we removed the man, again, and added more and more women? Or exclude the women, and allow only men of equal status.
No, because although multi-marriage does integrate the sexes it does so in an inferior form. Likewise with procreation. In our society we do prefer marriage and we do have an ideal form in mind when we recognize, privilege, and give special status to the one-to-one integration of the sexes not least because we also have an ideal in mind in terms of resonsible procreaton.
To drop that from marriage recognition would be a devolution, not an evolution.
–> From relationships exclusive to only white couples to all races and inter-racial couples.
On this point you are flat outrigh mistaken. But you do point to a problem with the SSM campaign.
Identity politics is unjust when pressed into marriage recognition. It was wrong when the racist filter was used to selectively segregate the sexes and to impair Responsible Procreation. And, although it might be presented as more benign, the gay identity filter is also unjust when it attempts to drag selective sex segregation and non-respponsible procreation under the auspices of marriage recognition.
I too lament the decline in the prestige of marriage.
You guys really screwed it up, didn’t you. What with “honor and obey” scaring off the women and community property laws scaring off the men, it’s a wonder anyone wants into it. And with quicky divorce and and the pressures of an economy that requires all adults to work, I’m surprised the divorce rate isn’t bigger. And when you add in the economic benefits that were for years doled out to single mothers, It’s not confusing why so many kids are born out of wedlock.
And then when you add in the way that conservatives have been trying to equate marriage with electing Republicans and reviling gay folk, I can’t imagine why any liberals (ie half the country) would even want to have anything to do with it.
Yep. Marriage is in pretty bad shape.
But there is hope.
With gay folk clammoring for the institution, it’s the first positive word that marriage has had in decades. With gay folks seeking to be part of marriage, it has a chance to drop off its exclusionary “old rich white Republicans only” image and regain some of its cache as the gold-standard for couples.
Hey, it worked in Scandinavia. After they started recognizing same-sex couples, their plummeting marriage rates turned around. Maybe it can happen here too.
The merger of SSM with marriage recognition (whether in the form of SSM in Massa. or CU elsewhere) locks-in negatives and locks-out protection and preference for the nature of marriage.
That’s just simply not true.
Marriage equality does not lock-in a single negative. None. No heterosexual marriage is negatively impacted in any way.
Marriage equality does not lock-out protections. None. No single protection for heterosexual marriage is reduced or “locked-out”.
Marriage equality does not lock out preference for marriage. It increases marriage’s cache as the gold-standard. It gives credibility to those who say “you should be abstinant until marriage”. It allows communities to insist on marriage in order to grant benefits without being discriminatory against their gay friends and neighbors.
The best thing that could happen to marriage would be for a community to be able to insist that all their kids, gay or straight, shoot for that goal.
Kids see right through hypocrisy. And they know that “gay people can get married, just to a woman” is stupid, bogus, a false notion, and not relevant to anyone’s life. They recognize that gay folks exist, are just like them, and want the same things. Furthermore they know full well that gay couples exist. And function as a family.
So when you say, “gay couples can’t marry” it leaves to these kids the idea that gay couples can function out there just fine without marriage… and so can they.
It is so ironic that those who so want to “protect marriage” are doing exactly the things that can doom it and fighting against one thing that could give marriage a fighting chance.
Hi Ken,
I think you have misunderstood what I have written. I’m talking about the particular conjugal relationship between a man and a woman which is distinct from all other partnerships and relationship and which has been universally honored and privileged.
If you read carefully I did not even mention the word “marriage” because it really doesn’t matter what you call, it remains a distinct relationship deserving of special benefits and recognition. Marriage just happens to be the name generally given to that relationship in English, although often the two are also pronounced “man and wife,” “hombre y mujer” (man and woman) in Spanish.
I’m even willing to compromise and say let us retain the special, unique, privileged position of the man and wife relationship and refer to the homosexual relationship non-euphemistically as simply the Homosexual Relationship. Those who would like to honor and benefit that relationship can then lobby for the Homosexual Relationship benefit packages and if the people vote for it they should get it. But let us not confound terminology and relationships by merging the man and woman relationship with the homosexual relationship.
Although I don’t like it, we can grant you a minor victory—the inevitable consequence of ss”m”—and drop the term “marriage” altogether but retain the distinction between the man and woman relationship and the homosexual relationship. This is pretty simple and could reduce all this tension over the word “marriage.” The word would become archaic and people would just talk about the “man and woman relationship” and the “homosexual relationship.” Society would provide benefits democratically to whichever they wish. Problem solved.
Peace.
Warren
(I know this is off topic on childrearing - yet the topic has seemed to drift to marriage rates in general and applicable harm that is demonstrable in the acceptance of same-sex “marriage” )
{8/7/04 THE HAGUE–In an open letter to this newspaper, academics raise the alarm over the deteriorating state of marriage in The Netherlands.}
http://www.refdag.nl/artikel/105038/
Signed, Prof. M. van Mourik, professor in contract law,