Ruth Institute Blog

Reason #9: The study was started by a lesbian.

“…Dr. Nanette Gartrell of the University of California, San Francisco, who started the so-called US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study in 1986…

…according to Gartrell, who is in a same-sex partnership.”

“The results are nothing but the mothers’ reports of their childrens’ behavior and functioning. There is no cross-checking with objective outcomes, such as actual school achievement or teacher’s reports of behavior problems.”

The results also included reports from the children themselves about their families and lives.

“The most detailed part of the study was devoted to showing that any problems the children of lesbians experienced were due to homophobia. But the causal link between the mother’s reports of homophobia and the mother’s reports of aggressiveness could run the opposite way: kids might dislike those who are aggressive, and this dislike could be interpreted as homophobia.”

Again, the results included reports from the children themselves, who are probably in the best position to talk about how homophobia affects them. Look, I know that you guys are in the business of misleading others, but could you at least accurately report the facts? Is it really that difficult for you to believe that children suffer when hatred and homophobia is directed at them and/or their families? That some kids learn this hatred from their parents and then go to school and verbally and physically harass the children of same-sex parents? Oh, but wait, I bet you’ll blame the same-sex parents themselves instead of the aggressors, just like people once blamed interracial couples for the harm their children suffered from racists. Nice.

And Maria, if we threw out the results of every study in which the researcher was personally interested in the results, we probably wouldn’t have a whole lot of research to rely on. That’s what peer review by other social scientists is for, something the pseudo-scientists on the right-wing don’t typically engage in.

Sorry, Heidi, but you’ve got it wrong again! The ONLY valid study like this would be one base on OBJECTIVE standards, not subjective, like school absences or reports of violence or even reports by school psychologists. This is nothing more than junk ‘science’. This is along the same lines as the garbage reports from the “Williams Institute” at UCLA that purport to show that an estimated 18,000 gays were married in California during the time that gay marriage was allowed. I say garbage because such information is absolutely impossible to know! The state kept no records of couples who were married as to the sex of either partner. In fact, they made it impossible to know bacause they revised the marriage license form, and the only city or county that kept any kind of records with that information was San Francisco. So, their so-called ‘estimate’ was based on the percentage of gay marriages to all marriages in San Francisco, and then extrapolating from that to the entire state. How absolutely ridiculous! Oh, and guess who funds the Williams Institute. You got it! A bunch of very well funded gay groups. Give me a break!

The point is this: It is more than obvious that this study was never intended to be objective or comprehensive in any matter. It began with a pre-determine conclusion and conformed the data to support their pre-determined conclusion. That’s not even remotely reliable or even really worth mentioning. It’s junk.

Thank you, Heidi and Maria, for showing that there’s people out there who aren’t interested in a rational, unbiased discussion untainted by political belief. Unfortunately, you are the two who seem to be showing that.

If I were a responsible, honest citizen, who strongly believed that homosexual acts and relationships are not merely morally neutral, but emphatically good, so good in fact, that the full status and privileges of marriage should be extended to such relationships, I would be greatly angered by the reporting on this study. I would be angry that my fellow friends of homosexuality would think it appropriate to resort to misleading statements. After all, given that my cause would be just, I would hate that such “studies” would sully the reputation of the position I held dear.

Just as if I, in addition to celebrating homosexual acts, also celebrated freedom of speech, I would denounce the coercion brought to bear on traditionalists, including imprisonment in Europe.

I fear for the homosexualists, freedom of speech–and even telling the truth–are less important that the sacred cause of sodomy.

@Kevin
Kevin, how can a discussion be truly unbiased? Try as I may, I don’t follow the logic of anyone that believes a discussion can be unbiased. To be unbiased is to have no opinion and to have no opinion is to either have no intelligence or be so apathetic as to be disturbing. Perhaps what you mean is that people should listen with an open mind? There’s a big difference between being unbiased and having an open mind. I am glad that people have different opinions, because that means that they are at least striving to know something and improve themselves.

@Kevin

Karen, unfortunately, you are the one who has it wrong. Ever heard of the difference between qualitative and quantitative data? Subjective beliefs and attitudes are quite frequently used in social science research. And when you show me your degree in social science research, I might then trust your opinion as to the validity of the study. Again, that is what peer review is for.

David, fear not. The First Amendment protects your right to speak even hateful and homophobic words, just as it protects other forms of hate speech. America is not Europe, and the only way that anyone is going to be imprisoned for speech is if we throw out the First Amendment. The only speech not protected in this country is that which serves as an incitement to unlawful or violent behavior. Indeed, the First Amendment protects even the most vile speech. Just ask Larry Flynt. And its not the “sacred cause of sodomy” for which we are fighting–it’s the sacred causes of liberty, equality under the law, and justice.

Well, yes subjective attitudes are often used in research. But that’s not what this research purports to be. The assertion that the children of lesbian moms ‘do well’ shouldn’t be subjective. You need some kind of objective standard to come to that conclusion, and it can’t simply be that they SAY they’re doing well – or even that their MOM’s say they’re doing well. Here’s the quote directly from the conclusion of the study:

“According to their mothers’ reports, the 17-year-old daughters and sons of lesbian mothers were rated significantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem behavior than their age-matched counterparts in Achenbach’s normative sample of American youth.”

And here are their own stated limitations of the study:

“This study has several limitations. First, it has a nonrandom sample. When the study began in the 1980s, the targeted population was largely hidden because of the long history of discrimination against lesbian and gay people, so the possibility of recruiting a representative sample of prospective lesbian mothers was even more unrealistic than it is today.7,8,52 At T1 and T2, some NLLFS participants expressed fears that legislation could be enacted to rescind the parenting rights of lesbian mothers.21,22 Similar concerns may have deterred other prospective mothers from volunteering for the NLLFS, despite assurances of confidentiality.”

“A second limitation is that the data did not include the Achenbach Youth Self- Report or Teacher’s Report Form.39 A more comprehensive assessment would have included reports from all 3 sources. A final limitation is that although the NLLFS and the normative
samples are similar in socioeconomic status, they are neither matched nor controlled for race/ethnicity or region of residence. The NLLFS sample is drawn from first-wave planned lesbian families who were initially clustered around metropolitan areas with visible lesbian communities, which were much less diverse than they are today; recruiting was limited to the relatively small number of prospective mothers who felt safe enough to identify publicly
as lesbian, who had the economic resources to afford DI, and who, in the pre-Internet era, were affiliated with the communities in which the study was advertised.”

I don’t know . . . I think those are VERY severe limitations, including the fact that it only included 154 lesbians! Basically, they invalidate the study, and it doesn’t take a degree in social science research to figure that out.

The study simply states that children of lesbian relationships, in general, do well compared a societal control sample. It doesn’t conclude that lesbian parenting is a superior model, it simply states that the data show no reason to suggest lesbian parenting is inferior. As a medical professional and researcher myself, I think this data certainly suggests the sky isn’t falling. I’ll agree more research would be in order, as is often the case, but the larger sample sizes you suggest are difficult to come by because society makes it so damned hard for us to provide the sample numbers we’d like to see.

And large sample sizes don’t guarantee quality results. For example, the massive sample size in the Women’s Health Initiative, one of the largest studies ever to date, didn’t prevent the results from being essentially worthless due to the fact the hormone replacement was accomplished using Premarin (horse pee). Don’t get me started on the challenges of quality research.

Anyway, I personally again speak to my family, and N of 2 kids. So far, they’re doing great. My son does have ADD, but since my wife is a stay-at-home mom, we can focus the dedicated time it takes to help the boy succeed. He scored best in his class in math this year. Written, not so hot, but that’s the focus thing. We’ll keep working on it.

We’re lucky. My wife can stay at home secure that she’ll get the benefit of my social security and pension. She’ll get Medicare based on my work credits. Our income is averaged between us since we can file married-jointly. Most families like ours have a much harder time providing such focused attention on the kids because society pretty much forces both parents to work. That this data suggests kids in lesbian relationships do as well as they do, considering all those hurdles, is amazing. Most same-sex families start with a huge handicap over every hetero pairing out there, and few outside those of us living it quite realize that.

You could only compare the study to a hand selected sample of heterosexual couple raised children from similiar socioeconomic strata and educational level as the lesbian couple raised children, otherwise the comparison means nothing.

You’d also have to control for prior divorce. I’ve always maintained divorce has a far greater impact on kids than anything else. Kids need consistency in their lives. I’ve asked my kids if they’d rather have a dad than two moms, something that would require we divorce. They’ve both made it perfectly clear they would NOT want that.

I would love to see an in-depth, completely random-sampled study on this that is iron-clad objective. I predict that Mother Nature’s law would win out in the end. Reason would seem to indicate that same-sex unions, same-family unions, these things tend not to work out in nature over the long haul. Deep down I think this is what must really cause emotional distress for those challenged to justify it. But please, can we get a real study with real results first before I go on? The flawed survey we’re talking about now really isn’t worth the attention.

The report actually says that the mothers reported on aggressiveness, “According to their mothers’ reports, the 17-year-old daughters and sons of lesbian mothers were rated significantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence and significantly lower
in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem behavior than their age-matched counterparts in Achenbach’s normative sample of American youth.” The point still stands regardless of who reported the homophobia or the aggressiveness — mothers or children.

I did not read anything about the Ruth Institute not believing that people suffer when hatred is directed at them. The point is over a logical fallacy. One commits a logical fallacy when one assumes that the only reason someone is aggressive is that they are the object of hate.

Rather than showing how the study does not commit a logical fallacy, Heidi defends the logical fallacy it does commit when she supports the assumption that there is only one cause of dislike for children of lesbian parents and only one cause for their aggressiveness, “Is it really that difficult for you to believe that children suffer when hatred and homophobia is directed at them and/or their families? That some kids learn this hatred from their parents and then go to school and verbally and physically harass the children of same-sex parents?” There can be more than one cause of being made fun of, and self-reports from the children and parents involved are not objective sources of information.

Heidi makes an accusation about what the institute believes when the point has nothing to do with what they believe. (Just as the study, in itself, insofar as it is reasonable, has nothing to do with the author.) The point is whether or not the study addressed all possible causes when it looked at issues the children have.

My family has been fortunate that we’ve not experienced, as yet, a single instance of verbal or physical violence against our kids due to their parents’ circumstances. That said, we aren’t flamboyant about our existance. We don’t hide it, but we don’t flaunt it. Our kids have friends of conservative families, and their parents have met both of us. My kids have said the friends are sometimes asked what happens in our house. I think some expected that we’d somehow try to “convert” the kids, and have been pleasantly surprised that we don’t make any deal of it at all. We refrain from significant displays of affection around others’ kids.

My son has experienced a little bullying, but I am 100% certain it has to do with his ADD and his insistance that everyone love Pokemon as much as he does. He’s also an empathetic boy, heart on his sleeve, so much like his father at that age, and that can invite bullying as well. In groups where kids get to know him, like baseball little-league, he’s well-liked.

It helps that we live in a “purple” area where no one on either side of the spectrum really feels marginalized and most seem to be able to see beyond the rheteric, at least around the kids. We’ve been around here so long that even many who don’t like gay marriage have kinda grandfather’d us in since we’re so boring.

This said, I have experienced prejudice and it’s no fun. I’m not into martyrdom, though. I just dust myself off and go on.

Maria, you make a great point. By this logic, we must assume that any marriage research done by straight married people is invalid. Any study done on parenting by heterosexual parents, when done by heterosexual parents, is invalid. Bias is inherent in all researchers, so only gay researchers should research straight folks, and vice versa.

@lawfully_wedded_wife
A man is a very important part in a childs life just like a woman is. God gave each of them a specific role to play in the childrens upbringing. Now that being said, no marriage is perfect, and without God in it, it will crumble and fall. We are ALL given free will and make our own choices, but it gripes me that we are such a selfish species that we don’t even consider what impact our decisions will have on other people or our children. The saying now is, “If it makes YOU happy,” or “As long as I am happy, then it’s okay,” or “If thats the way you feel, then it must be right.” I crave a cigarette all the time, and want it more than anything sometimes, but I reach down and fight the urge because I know it’s wrong. People, just because it feels right doesn’t mean it is right. The heart can be deceived very easily…that is why we must go with our minds. Yes, I am married and I have 3 children with my husband. We have gone through alot together and of course it doesn’t come without it’s trials and tribulations, but everyday I see the role my husband plays in my kids lives that I couldn’t possibly give them, and visa versa. Keep telling yourself it’s okay lawfully_we, in the end we will all be judged by God and our sins will be made known. Straight or Gay, I pray for our nation more than ever before. We have fallen so far from God I just wonder when he is going to say enough is enough…

The criticisms raised hold true for any research and encourage thoughtful review. The study is a well conducted research study, and declares its limitations, as any good study would do. With those limitations in mind the findings extrapolated still stand. Objectivty, which some commentators are calling for, is neither possible (there is a human at the end of every research pen) or desirable. In my mind belief and passion should be a part of every research. Objectivty in the face of injustice is complicity, as Ocatvio Paz wote. The point of the research is to say that in spite of potential and political repercussions, the children of lesbian parents compared to children of heterosexual parents are not cringing unhappy victims, as political opponents of same sex marriage have a tendency to claim.

I have seen no study that shows kids raised by lesbians (or gay men) are worse off than those raised by heterosexual parents. Why do we assume kids of lesbian/gay parents are somehow harmed unless we can PROVE otherwise? It’s not very scientific, but most of the troubled kids I know were raised by heterosexual parents. 30 years out of high school, I have several classmates in jail, one for murder. All were raised in intact heterosexual households. Why aren’t we talking about the harm to those kids, obviously caused by the heterosexuality of their parents? Uh, because that would be silly. Just like the assumption that the sexuality of lesbian/gay parents negatively affects their kids. It’s silly. Kids being good or bad is about the quality of the parenting, and societal influences (including prejudice like that promoted by N.O.M.).

So basically, if you find this study goes against your core beliefs, you rationalize to discredit it. This study has met all the parameters of sound research, it’s been peer reviewed and it employs the standard methodology of research. But you just can’t past it.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/peds.2009-3153v1

To address your reasons:

1. The sample is small. In order for this to be a valid criticism you would need to show us that the sample is small in comparison to other studies.

2. Only willful blindness avoids the point that the “straight” parents would also be the highest functioning. Also, did the study say that they told the parents what in particular they were studying – either set of parents? It is general scientific practice not to. Further you skip over the fact that they were recruited upon insemination – one would think that if they were as dysfunctional as “sexual perverts” are supposed to be that they would have unraveled in 17 years. Now one possible criticism you could have made is that by definition lesbian mothers who were inseminated were mothers who very much wanted a child and perhaps the control group should have included only those hetero mothers that had to use medical science to become pregnant. As the study itself says: because it is a prospective study the results are not skewed by overrepresentation of those who already know their offspring are doing well.

3. It has already been pointed out that that is not entirely true but even if it were – so lesbians lie about their children in the positive and straight mothers what? Tell the truth? Or lie in the negative? So lesbians are liars more interested in looking good than the best interest of their children? Interesting. I reject it. But more to the point – not very objective on your part.

4. Why is it unusual for their to be no difference in male and female children? Can you point to other scientific studies to back this point or is it unusual in reference to your predisposed assumptions.

5. The study addresses this – that most of those split couples retained joint custody as opposed to the hetero normative of mothers retaining custody. It has already been proven in many other studies that children in joint custody situations fare much better.

6. Page 8 specifically states that they were matched in socioeconomic status. You should read page 8 though – it goes through the trouble of pointing out the problems within the study. Lots of fodder in there that you missed – for example it DOESN’T match the children in terms of where they live. I’m betting kids would do better in my neighborhood than yours.

7. HOLY COW – now THAT is in fact a valid point. Not a slam dunk mind you since it could turn out legit but definitely a valid concern.

8. That may or may not be true. How about if we stop heaping hatred on homosexuals and then we’ll see if the kids who are being victimized are “bringing it on themselves.”

9. You don’t have to answer “aloud” but if 1-8 were resolved to your satisfaction THEN would you believe the study? Would you in fact accept the result of any study that DIDN’T say “children of homosexuals are irrevocably messed up and probably evil to boot.” I didn’t think so . . .

And btw, my children are being raised by their mother and father so no, I am not “one of them” – – I’m just smart enough to know that science is science and that that “they” are part of “us.”

let’s deal with these one-by-one:
#1: 78/93 is not “extremely small.” 3/3 is “extremely small.” “300/310” might be referred to as “large” or “comprehensive.” The size of a sample relative to the entire population it attempts to predict determines, in part, Margin of Error (MOE)… that is, with what confidence (95% is typical) could the study be replicated with similar (within, say 5 points) results? Smaller samples have larger MOEs, larger samples have smaller ones. So the sample size says nothing about the study’s accuracy, just its replicability. And 78/93 is a pretty substantial sample.
#2-#3: Many studies use self-reported data, and variables like ‘data source’ or ‘sample selection’ are the primary reason for control groups. That is, whatever the biases of the experimental group are, they’re probably replicated for the most part with the control group, so error introduction is minimized.
#4:a study’s departure from other, earlier findings is indeed surprising, but in no way impacts the reliability of that data. That this study shows less variability between males and females might well not be inkeeping with one’s expectations, but then, that’s why hypothesis statements are usually phrased as questions. It could be that the lesbian mothers are underreporting difficulties, or it could be that lesbian parenting of boys mitigates or largely eliminates negative influences related to having a male authority figure (a dad, for example) — or any number of other things. It’s pure speculation, and without some data to support it, it’s really pretty worthless.
#5: This is yet another effort to dismiss a finding one does not like. It may be that this finding suggests that children of lesbians are better able to handle disruptions than their straight-parent counterparts. Given the daily difficulty these children endure from bullying, taunting, hatred and other bad behavior taught to their peers by their parents, this is a noteworthy, but not unexpected, finding.
#6: Do you suppose the variation of SES of the experimental group is significantly/vastly different than that of the control group? See #2-#3 above
#7: this is a spurious argument, which takes on the writing style of the publication, not the actual study itself. Typically, a control group and an experimental group are chosen the same way (see #2-#3 above). Obviously, this is important, and if it had been an issue, one can rest assured that the critique of other similar reviewers would have explored it, and if it were unusual, it would be included in the report.
#8: must we even address this? The subject of one’s aggression is usually pretty obvious. And really, we don’t much care about causation, only with correlation. And of course, the same complaint made against the experimental group could also be equally made against the control group (see #2-#3 above)

So it’s pretty clear that this critique doesn’t have nearly the scientific rigor of the study it seeks to refute, and a much stronger political basis. Are we interested in science or ideology?

http://nikflorida.org. Where we don’t tell you WHAT to think, just to think.

The bottom line is this. When two lesbians produce an child, they should be able to raise that child. Conversely when two homosexual men produce a child, they two should be able to raise them. Since they will never be able to convey to any child what the opposite sex feels, truly thinks, acts and the many other character traits natural to the man or woman’s function, anything other than a father and mother is not the best environment for the kids. And yes, I know, there are horrible men and women raising kids that should never reproduce, however that’s a different topic. I simply feel that until two people of the same sex produce an offspring, they have no say in the matter of what society should or should not do in laws, norms and the highest and best for society. This is not homophobic, as I have not a prejudiced bone in my body. Anyone can do what they want, act how they want, make behavioral choices as they want etc. But when it comes to redefining the natural order of reproduction and child rearing, I think the line should be drawn. And in case you say this is harsh, and everyone should have the right to raise a child…I would say, says who? Where is that right granted? It’s not in the animal kingdom, as you’ll never have an offspring by two males or two females. It’s called nature. Hence doing or following what is designed by nature…i.e. natural. Just my opinion. I respect yours and hope you’ll respect mine. Not a judgement, as I said, just my opinion.

IF the “facts” metioned above are indeed correct theñ the study is junk.. It does not matter how you see it it’s just a too small sample to even say such a thing. And nao quantitive study should be volunteer because its already (for better or for worst) tanting with the final results because only a few with some basic charecteristics will join.

I would ask all the participants that should try to keep this a rational argument. Insults such as “I know that you guys are in the business of misleading others” or “you society brain-washed people” just get your points of view degraded.

We are all rational and intellegent people, so never degrade to an animal state of insults.

one more thing, the so called “study” does not say that lesbians are the best or the worst, so lets focuse on the subject and do not compare. This page is about the study is in fact made in a correct or in incorrect way.

In my opinion, this “study” proves nothing. Its junk as said before

One analysis I found interesting suggested a “eugenic effect.” If these children tended to be conceived by sperm donation, wouldn’t there be a tendency to choose a donor from a successful, “rule-following” background?

It seems counter-intuitive to deny that some people’s habits have a hereditary basis. What are the effects on a community where donors are chosen in a “eugenic” fashion?

(Also: “Homophobia” is a propaganda term used to depict the morally upright as mentally ill.)

@Gatio – Instead of assuming the author is correct in the statements presented – why not read the study? All studies of subjective matters such as how well developed a child is are in one way or another junk. However, the study certainly is more scientifically rigorous than the presumption that prompted such a study – – – why we are trying to prove that homosexuals can be good parents is beyond me. People should be screened equally for parenthood. In terms of the scientific rigor of the study it is of note that the study did not conclude “lesbians are better parents.” While I’m loathe to lobby for the other side (oh, yes, I have taken a side) . . . for all we know aggression during the teen years is appropriate and the fact that the children of lesbians show a lower rate of aggression is in fact unhealthy. It was the journalists that decided that the findings were quantitatively good and you all agreed with them but science doesn’t give a good fig what is “good” and what is “bad.”

@cuttothetrut – I’m good with that – as long as you also hold hetero parents to the same measure. In other words, no more adoptions, no more in vitro, no more hormone therapy etc etc. You only get children if you produce them. Of course, you missed the fact that in the study some of the women had in fact produced the child “the old fashioned way”. Additionally, to your point about following nature – hear hear – let us follow nature; let us kill our young that do not measure up to promulgating the fittest of our species and let us throw our children out on their own as soon as we show them how to hunt and harvest. You are prejudiced whether you want to acknowledge it or not but more to the point you are shortsighted.

@Kevin J Jones
Apparently i’m not allowed to point out the dissonance present in those that are homophobic in terms of their moral uprightness. I would assume that you know the argument I’m making but then not if the morally upright world have sequestered themselves from criticism. So I guess that conjecture is a fine tool to lob against others but actual facts . . .not so much.

My other comment to you was this – I agree that the control group should also have been those that were medically sought; even those hetero couples with sperm donors I would accept. However, I might point out to you that you are saying that lesbians would pick sperm donors that they felt exhibited “rule following” behaviour (whatever that means) but why would a lesbian, who is in your definition not morally upright seek to create a morally upright child?

Charity, it’s wonderful that your family is functioning so well with you and a husband. But that doesn’t mean the configuration is perfect, necessary, or will work well in all cases. I dispute your assertion that God gave women and men roles. The only roles God gave were purely biological–sperm, egg, mammary. All other roles were invented by people.

Comparing sexuality to the craving of a cigarette is bizarre. It’s insulting. And it’s not accurate. Would you describe your love for your husband as being like a cigarette craving? I didn’t think so. Why then, would you denigrate others’ love this way?

Kevin, homophobic means, literally, the fear of the same–or fear of same-loving people (homosexuals). It accurately describes acts that are prejudiced against gay and lesbian people. The prejudice must be based on fear, as there is no other rational basis for it. Unless, that is, you concede that the prejudice is based on pure hate.

Heidi :
Karen, unfortunately, you are the one who has it wrong. Ever heard of the difference between qualitative and quantitative data?

Glad you brought that up Heidi, please note that this “study” has NEITHER.

@Cassandra
Cassandra, your response to Kevin clearly shows you know very little about the entire process from sperm donation to birth. Also, would you be interested in knowing if the donor information was similar in certain aspects? Or do you think it’s irrelevant that every single couple chose sperm from a 35 year old, blonde, blue-eyed, Corporate Executive?

nikflorida :
let’s deal with these one-by-one:
#1: 78/93 is not “extremely small.” 3/3 is “extremely small.” “300/310″ might be referred to as “large” or “comprehensive.” The size of a sample relative to the entire population it attempts to predict determines, in part, Margin of Error (MOE)… that is, with what confidence (95% is typical) could the study be replicated with similar (within, say 5 points) results? Smaller samples have larger MOEs, larger samples have smaller ones. So the sample size says nothing about the study’s accuracy, just its replicability. And 78/93 is a pretty substantial sample.
#2-#3: Many studies use self-reported data, and variables like ‘data source’ or ’sample selection’ are the primary reason for control groups. That is, whatever the biases of the experimental group are, they’re probably replicated for the most part with the control group, so error introduction is minimized.
#4:a study’s departure from other, earlier findings is indeed surprising, but in no way impacts the reliability of that data. That this study shows less variability between males and females might well not be inkeeping with one’s expectations, but then, that’s why hypothesis statements are usually phrased as questions. It could be that the lesbian mothers are underreporting difficulties, or it could be that lesbian parenting of boys mitigates or largely eliminates negative influences related to having a male authority figure (a dad, for example) — or any number of other things. It’s pure speculation, and without some data to support it, it’s really pretty worthless.
#5: This is yet another effort to dismiss a finding one does not like. It may be that this finding suggests that children of lesbians are better able to handle disruptions than their straight-parent counterparts. Given the daily difficulty these children endure from bullying, taunting, hatred and other bad behavior taught to their peers by their parents, this is a noteworthy, but not unexpected, finding.
#6: Do you suppose the variation of SES of the experimental group is significantly/vastly different than that of the control group? See #2-#3 above
#7: this is a spurious argument, which takes on the writing style of the publication, not the actual study itself. Typically, a control group and an experimental group are chosen the same way (see #2-#3 above). Obviously, this is important, and if it had been an issue, one can rest assured that the critique of other similar reviewers would have explored it, and if it were unusual, it would be included in the report.
#8: must we even address this? The subject of one’s aggression is usually pretty obvious. And really, we don’t much care about causation, only with correlation. And of course, the same complaint made against the experimental group could also be equally made against the control group (see #2-#3 above)
So it’s pretty clear that this critique doesn’t have nearly the scientific rigor of the study it seeks to refute, and a much stronger political basis. Are we interested in science or ideology?
http://nikflorida.org. Where we don’t tell you WHAT to think, just to think.

#1. Yes, 93 is an EXTREMELY small number for a study like this one. Do you not have any common sense?
#2-#3. I did a study, and my finding was that 100% of the people surveyed think you’re an idiot. That’s 3 out of 3. Yes, I found the other 2 people myself, but that won’t have any bearing on the outcome, will it?
#4. That was the point entirely. This study has no actual ‘data’ to support it.
I think that’s enough. The rest of your statement had nothing to do with the actual facts, lack of data, or the obvious bias of the study.

It’s highly likely this study was a facebook post on a Gay 0r Lesbian-oriented page that said. “Hey gays and gals. I’m doing a study to show how we can raise kids better than straight folk, so post your stories here so I can put them in the study. Thank you!”

Very scientific indeed.

Again please note the absolute lack of any factual data from this study.
Positive response example: “Little Timothy is 38, hasn’t tried to look for a job in 14 months, hasn’t even gone out of the house in two weeks, and does nothing but sit and watch ‘Days of Our Lives’ and ‘Oprah’, but he loves me.”

It seems so simple to me. What child or adult would not, if offered the choice, desire to be loved by and known by the two people who gave them life? Who would choose to wae a Tshirt that says “My Daddy’s Name is Donor?” Children do have a right to the marriage of their biological parents who are devoted to them and to each other. It is called the ideal. We all understand the concept of “ideal” except when it comes to children’s rights. Children cannot advocate for themselves at tender ages. But many children grow up to become adults who experience heartaches and challenges associated with not knowing one or more of their natural parents. Children do best with the influence and love of both their natural mother and father. When that does not happen, it is called a tragedy so far as the child is concerned. And society should do all that is possible to compensate for that tragedy in a loving and compassionate way. We fall short regarding the above described ideal, but we should head towards the ideal as a goal, and not away from it just because adults have aspirations. Every child deserves his or her own shot at the ideal. The mother and father who gave them life.

Miriam, “the ideal”? Says who? You will not find credible research that shows a mommy and a daddy are the ideal. Sorry, but it’s not there. You WILL find credible research that shows two parents are better than one, and that’s really logical. Two people providing support, either in-home or via income, or both; two people giving love and encouragement; etc. But this heterosexual ideal of which you speak is your own bias. That’s fine, but let’s stop spouting all this stuff suggesting that any kid not raised by his or her two biological heterosexual parents is at a deficit. It’s just not true. Many adopted kids will tell you that, as well as kids raised by grandparents and aunts and uncles, and some kids raised by super single parents. As one who was raised by a dysfunctional heterosexual couple (my dad beat us and my mother took out her anger by being emotionally distant), I would have traded my parents for two loving dads in a New York minute. Or two loving moms. Or one loving mom. Or one loving dad…….

@AmericanD
Actually I’ve quite a few friends who have been through the process. And you? You’re answer is so divorced from what I said that I’m not even sure how to respond. When I suggested that the comparison be with hetero couples that sought medical intervention to produce their children I was suggesting that those who have taken extra measures to produce children should be compared against the like. As to the eugenics aspect – Do I think we should know that they all chose a blond, blue-eyed corporate exec? Perhaps. Do you think they really did? Because my actual experience with real live lesbians . . . that isn’t who they chose. My response to Kevin was to address his point that the lesbians in question had chosen someone who was “rule following.” I’m not sure how one would choose someone who was thus or how that is a genetic trait. However, if we pretend moral fortitude can be screened and identified on a donor form then I find it curious that Kevin thinks a lesbian would seek someone with moral fortitude. After all, lesbians are perverts, right? And they intend to pervert their children, right?

@AmericanD
Did you read the study at all?

@Karen
My advice to you is never tell them that your hetero parents were not ideal. Personally, my hetero parents were great but the way I have seen this game play out in past forums is that children of hetero parents that came from unhappy homes are discredited as immature; short sighted brainwashed etc. Children of homosexual parents that came from unhappy homes are “proof.”

Heads I win – Tails you lose.

@Charity: You said, “Now that being said, no marriage is perfect, and without God in it, it will crumble and fall.” Thank you for recognizing that my marriage, which will celebrate it’s 20th anniversary this Sept, has God in it. It’s a hopeful start.

We thought long and hard about raising kids. My parents had long since resigned themselves to having grandferrets. It was eight years into or marriage before we started the process, and only after we knew why we wanted them. I can assure you, we had their best interests in mind. We felt we had a lot to give a child. Both our kids are now old enough to say, regularly, that they agree.

My wife plays a much different role than I in our family. She’s the rule maker and disciplinarian. The kids know I’m the one to which to bring things. They know I’ll never counter her decisions, but that I will negotiate on their behalf. She’s also my strength. Despite the fact that I’m the career woman with three degrees and she a stay-at-home Mom with “just” two, she’s the one who keeps me together, gives me my “center” if you will. I’m overjoyed that you have found such joyful completion with your husband. Don’t assume that I haven’t found the same with my spouse.

Cassandra said: “When I suggested that the comparison be with hetero couples that sought medical intervention to produce their children I was suggesting that those who have taken extra measures to produce children should be compared against the like.”

The lack of the other sex is not infertility so man-woman couples seeking medical treatment for infertility would not provide the apt comparison you proposed.

The experience of infertility is not inconsequential within the context of a sexualized relationship that ordinarily begets children. It is a vastly different experience than that of individuals who pursue child-making with the explicit priority of disuniting motherhood and fatherhood.

Healthy single women who use these services would make for apt comparison. The lack of a father is the common feature that is experienced as something to workaround.

Husband and wife duos, on the other hand, partake of extramarital procreation when they use these services — not to treat infertility but to aquire gamets with which to manufacture children. The experience of infertility continues because these services do not restore fertility; the relationship is stressed first during the experience but also later, during childraising, as a negative influence, on average, and this ought to be studied in terms of outcomes for children. Also, adult children who are ‘donor-conceived’ have their own direct experiences — mostly internal and highly subjective — that factors into the mix.

So while the comparison you proposed is superficially plausible, it actually suffers from flaws which arise from significant differences in how people come to third party procreation and what I’d call differences in sexual ecology.

As I said before:
You could only compare the study to a hand selected sample of heterosexual couple raised children from similiar socioeconomic strata and educational level as the lesbian couple raised children, otherwise the comparison means nothing.

And any study where the parents volunteer information, straight or gay, is going to be tainted because of “self-reporting.” I’m sure any mom or dad is going to want to omit “she/he’s a disrespectful little brat.” There are good and bad parents on both sides.
I like how if the children of the gay couples have a problem, it was suggested to be from…the hatred and bullying by all those racist homophobic straight children out there…
Children are generally cruel, even those raised properly, ask any school teacher, and it may not have anything to do with who your parents are.

If one doesn’t like, or approve of tatoos are they tatophobic?
Why do so many need to believe that just because someone doesn’t approve of a choice, they are racist, evil, homophobic, haters?

I think teen pregnancy and sex outside of marriage is wrong, but I don’t hate pregnant teenagers or unwed mothers– you really need to drop the hate card.

And Christian liberty will be taken away…

“Lexington, Mass., father of 6-year-old arrested, spends night in jail over objections to homosexual curriculum in son’s kindergarten class.
“Because of the same-sex marriage law people are treating this as a mandate to teach the youngest of children.”
– David Parker, parent of 6-year-old, arrested Apr. 27, 2005

@Melly: I’m not one to pull the hate card, and I would defend your liberties. Still, please realize these are OUR families we’re talking about, and it can be hard to take the bitter pill others try and feed us, that our relationships and families aren’t good enough. I hurts, deeply, and can make it hard sometimes to be objective. I think that’s the only reason people see me as the “rational one”. I have a marriage, so the sting isn’t quite…quite…as hard.

When two people want to live dedicated to each other the rest of their lives, and share that joyous union with children, to be told that our kids will suffer penalties other kids don’t have to suffer, that we’ll pay a serious fine above what other couples pay at the same income, that our retirement can’t be shared like others’ can, it seems wrong to us. It’s hard not to see such decisions as not being directed specifically at us, like a laser. It can feel hateful. In some cases it is, I recognise usually it’s not, and clearly not with you.

I can resonate with the tatoo example as I don’t like or approve of them. If one doesn’t like tatoos such that they wish to prevent other adults from having them, yes, I’d say that’s tatoophobic. If someone like me just doesn’t have one, avoids dealing with those who have tatoos, and teaches our kids they really should not have one, I’d call that “tatoo averse”. I’ll still love the kids if they get one. Same with same-sex relationships. You can live as averse as you like and teach yours kids they don’t want to live in such a way, but try to change others to fit your own morality, or to weaken their rights or prospects, and that strikes me as being phobic.

LWW said: “our kids will suffer penalties other kids don’t have to suffer”

What penalities apply on the basis of lesbianism or gayness or whatever identity group you might be talking about?

Society may legitimately discriminate between marriage and nonmarriage. Or do you disagree?

Also, there are sexual behaviors for which approbation may be accorded; and some that disapprobation may be given. Do you disagree?

Are you asking that society reward same-sex sexual behavior? I think you are, because repeatedly you have used the hetero-homo dichotomy as the foundation of your comments; in terms of the man-woman criterion of marriage law, that is a false dichotomy. You are not penalized and fined for membership in your identity group.

In other words, you are deliberately framing the discussion — and the marriage issue — as the struggle of gay identity politics to “change others to fit your own morality, or to weaken their rights or prospects” — and if that strikes you as phobic, then, I’d advise that you loosen the grip of identity politics on your worldview.

Free advice (yours or mine) is probably worth the fee, of course.

@Chairm: I have effectively answered most of the above here.

As far as penalties, yes, most same-sex pairings are penalized. They do not get to file jointly for taxes or garner other tax benefits related to employment, they do not get to share Social Security, and the Medicare points of one do not benefit the other. These factors significantly hinder same-sex partners from maintaining one member at home as primary parent, as a routine presence for the kids. Same sex partners who choose to do it anyway take thousands of dollars in tax hits and significant retirement harm just for thinking of their kids first. An onerous penalty opposite sex couples can avoid simply by marriage- an avenue forbidden same sex couples, at least on a Federal level, since 1996. My wife and I only avoid this because we were married prior to Federal DOMA and are therefore grandfathered in by that and some other factors. This penalty is the practical crux of the discrimination engendered in your definition of marriage.

As far as there being “sexual behaviors for which approbation may be accorded; and some that disapprobation may be given”, I will agree assuming there is harm associated with it. Rape, pedophilia acted upon, etc. definitely have justification to be punished severely. Pornography or adult-themes around children are justified as being restricted. But what happens by adults or between consenting adults the government should stay out of.

LWW, now you use the euphemism, ‘same-sex pairings’. I take it you do not mean to include a pair of sisters or a mom-daughter pair. Is that correct?

Or are all same-sex pairings (sexualized or not) going to be relieved of the “penalities” you claim are fixed on the sexualized subset? If not, please justify their exclusion from your proposed societal largesse.

I suspect you seek to reward identity or sexual behavior and thus dish approbation on some same-sex pairings and not others. And this without a principled basis.

LWW said: ” I will agree assuming there is harm associated with it [sexual behavior]. Rape, pedophilia acted upon, etc. definitely have justification to be punished severely.”

Apart from severe behavior and severe punishment, disapprobation need not take the form of seek-out and penalize, as I am quite sure you can understand. Disapprobation can simply be ineligiblity for something.

On the other hand, absence of approbation, such as the neutrality you have been claiming to favor, is not a penalty, unlike what you said in your latest comment. Indeed, given that you have not provided special reason to accord a special status based on gayness — which is the only distinguishing feature you have hung your hat on — neutrality and the withholding of approbation becomes moot.

LWW said: “But what happens by adults or between consenting adults the government should stay out of.”

This would eraise the lines drawn against some related adults when it comes to eligiblity to marry. It would also eraise the lines drawn against consensual threesomes and moresomes. And if consent is the big factor, as per your own comment, then, it would also lean against some forms of underaged marriage.

These lines are based on the marriage idea, not the SSM idea. And the SSM idea says that neutrality is a penalty, as per your own words.

Also, LWW, all that you described as penalties also apply to polygamous and polyandrous and incestuous relationship types — opposite-sexed by the way, explicitly. This is so even if the individuals think first of their children. Even if the profess their love and lifelong commitment. Even if they plead to be treated neutrally without moral approbation or moral disapprobation.

Polygamy is a felony in most places; incestuous marriages are null and void; polyandrous arrangements are not even considered eligible for the sort of benefits you assume cannot be justly denied on the basis of identity group or sexual inclinations — provided all of that is consensual.

Consent, obviously, is not just a matter of what the participant’s decisions. Society must also consent when according a special status such as marital status — or even a protective status or a tolerative status. Societal consent is part of the mix. Government merely issues licenses, and accords status, on behalf of society. And justification of societal involvement is surely a basic bit of lawmaking and social policymaking, yes?

I will ask you upfront: do you see SSM as a way of achieving societal approbation for same-sex sexual attraction and same-sex sexual behavior? More than neutrality, special status means approbation, right? Or are you really more interested in protective status with a lower degree of societal approbation?

Most of this I have already answered here. Except on the specific topic of children of lesbians, the topic of the blog post, I’ll direct everything to the linked thread for both our convenience. I can’t keep up with the same discussion in so many places given my work and family comittments.

I will answer your final question, which I don’t think I specifically covered at the linked location, tonight from home with a post in the linked blog. Thank you in advance for your patience.

LWW, no problem.

Please also address disapprobation, approbation, and neutrality. That has not been addressed at the other link. Indeed, while you discussed “penalties” here as meaning one thing, you approved of “penalties” there as meaning that same thing and more.

I realize that you might not have given these things great thought in forming your opinons on the SSM idea, however, I appreciate you making the effort to articulate responses in this exchange between us.

You wanted to learn more about objections to the SSM merger and as you re-examine your own viewpoint you may discover that those objections shed light on how important marriage defenders believe this conflict actually is — not just for our own families today but for future generations to come. It really is not first and foremost all about homosexuality, same-sex sexual behavior, or gay identity politics, at least from our side of things. But that is quite the contrary of the pro-SSM side of things, I think.

f you get at least that much out of this exchange, then, I will feel we’ve accomplished a big piece of your stated goal. What do you think?

LWW said: “I can’t keep up with the same discussion in so many places given my work and family comittments.”

Perhaps you can understand how most defenders of marriage feel about the courtcentric and political onslaught of the SSM campaign. We have our lives and we don’t necessarily have the time and energy to devote to countering each and every cyncial “argument” that SSMers put out there.

It takes hard work to explain a social institution, its influence, its power and its vulnerability. It takes not nearly as much to superficially kick holes in the general public understanding of the actual disagreement on the marriage issue.

I must say that lawyers have a very difficult time juggling that sort of thing with the legalistic restrictions they must work within in our system of lawmaking and courts. Hence the SSM side starts with the tactical advantage where judges are ready to abuse the judicial role as occured in just about every jurisdiction where the SSM merger has been imposed. Setting things righth — restoring the status quo ante — has been an uphill struggle, not due to bad arguments on our part but due to the disadvantage we have in the propaganda war and the abuse of judicial review.

Marriage defeneders in the US are doing better than elsewhere because citizens can slow down the push for radical changes, in general, and even have the means by which to forestall and, sometimes, reverse the errors of courts or unresponsive legislatures.

So, we too have our lives to live and we did not ask for this ridiculous struggle over marriage. The SSM side started this and they have attack the core meaning of marriage with relentless fervor. Their arguments are plainly weak and hopelessly optimistic in favor of the SSM merger and cynical against the affirmation of marriage as marriage.

What youu may be feeling when dealing with steady and firm resistance and scrutiny in the discussions here is what we feel but in response to relentlessly juvenile assertions and superficial thinking — dogmatic axioms of gay identity politics — and we face, as a society, the perils of issue fatigue on marriage. Tire people out; make them feel ready to surrrender just to stop the wrangling; encourage people to become apathetic and withdrawn. That is a political strategy in use in Massachusetts and elsewhere. It is not good for our system of governance, nor for the state of public discourse, nor for our liberties.

So I empathize with your remarks about limited time and energy to devote to your own stated goal of learning more about the substantive objections to your SSM idea.

Okay, I’m tired. I’m one person with a spouse (whatever you may think of that), two kids, and lots of commitments. You clearly have more time than I and a cynicism that appears to show no bounds. I’ve also been told by said spouse to give it up.

So, before I go, let me just ask you a question.

You have a couple, two women or two men, who are dedicated to each other in a devout and faithful manner with a dedication no different than an opposite-sex couple who is able to get married. Sex may or may not be a part of the relationship, just as with opposite-sex couples. They found their soul-mate, although you may deride such romantic terms. They have kids. One of them wants to stay at home during the childrearing years and provide the solid, consistent presence of a stay-at-home parent. They look at the stark realities in the US and realize their union will require thousands in legal fees to establish the rights that come with a simple marriage license, will lack joint tax filing which will remove thousands of dollars from the family- essentially penalizing the decision for good parenting, the stay-at-home partner will place him or herself in great jeopardy in retirement due to lost Social Security credits, and numerous other hits. That’s pretty harsh for these families, and for the kids as they grow up with fewer means and having to help their parents in ways other kids do not.

Taking the above example, what do you offer them, and more specifically, their kids? You’ve mentioned support for non-traditional families outside the status of marriage. What does that mean from your perspective? Where is your human compromise?

@lawfully_wedded_wife
I’m not really trying to change anyone, only God, through the power of the Holy Spirit can bring about real change in a person. I have said before, I have no problem in your relationship having equal protection, but your choice should not be taught to public school children, without their parents’ knowledge or consent, as acceptable or appropriate, and religious institutions should not be forced to accept a lifestyle choice that is morally against their core of beliefs.

@Melly: Thank you, Melly. You are so right. As long as simple tolerance can at least be addressed in school, when needed, to prevent singling out of the kids of such unions for prejudicial treatment (i.e. bullying), I can agree with what you say so vociferously that I’d fight for it right along-side you.

Marriage as a religious institution should be left alone to each religion to interpret. This is already the case even within traditional marriage- Episcopals will allow remarriage, Catholics and Mormons will not. Similar latitude for restriction must certainly be extended to same-sex unions. And the rights of parents to conduct the moral upbringing of their children should be respected by all government agencies.

LWW, the fact is that provisions for designated beneficiaries is the solution which has been on the table for years. Merger is the area of disagreement.

What you described is no different, really, than millions of households where grandparents and parents combine to raise children; or where friends do so. You don’t really attempt to differentiate the one-sexed arrangement that is lesbian from these other one-sexed arrangements — you concede they are equally merititorious and should be treated on par.

I think you’d find that most people would agree that these can be recognized, and accorded protections based on vulnerabilities, without need to touch the marriage law and related social policy. These arrangements are not forms of marriage.

Rather than cynical, my view is realistic and optimistic. Given the rough state of the social institution of marriage, I say find ways to strengthen it without gutting its core meaning. But also recognize there are large populatiions of families outside of marriage for whom we, as a society, are obliged to protect precisely because we as a society have handicapped marriage. The solution is not to shrug and eraise the distinctions between marriage and nonmarriage — as deconstructionists would do — nor is it to impose the supremacy of identity politics — as gay activists would do. Both of those options are bolstered by highly cynical arguments that belittle marriage to the advantage of their radical ideologies.

Okay, some people think that the merger can be benign — but given the track record of the SSM campaign, one would have to be senseless to proceed on that basis. But even if the intentions were benign, the flaws in the proposed SSM merger persist. So it is not really a question only of protaganists with different values standing in conflict. There is a real social institution in peril here. Either it will be deconstructed, negated, superseded by identity politics, as per the trajectory that the SSM campaign has made clear — or it will be protected, reaffirmed, strenghtened, and brought above the politics of identity.

That is, afterall, how we managed to establish the pluralistic marriage laws that have served our civilization very well.

First of all, the use of the word NOT! with the exclamation point in one’s titles is dubious.

Regarding your issue with sample size, a study can draw generalizable conclusions a longitudinal study in which 78 subjects have participated in the study for over 20 years.

The women volunteered when they were pregnant…back in 1986-1992, when the researchers were seeking volunteers.

The study did not focus on the children of lesbian couples. It compared maternal reports on a standardized, widely-used survey instrument between children raised by lesbians and what the study calls the normative sampel. It was a gender-matched group of 49 girls and 44 boys, all 17 years old. Surveys were completed at ages 2,5, 10, and 17 by the participants in the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study.

Let’s assume mothers in both groups overestimated how well their children are doing. This negates your contention that the study should have “cross-referenced with objective outcomes.”

Regarding the confounding variable of socioeconomic status, the study notes that the SES of both both groups comparable. If you look at Table 1 in the study, the control group (children of heterosexual parents) is actually more skewed toward those with higher income so their scores would tend to be higher.

The normative group were participants in another study that the researchers were given permission to use. The study provides a reference to that other study if you’d like to look into how those participants were selected.

Like it or (obviously) not, this study is rigorous social scientific work and misrepresenting their research methods to your readers is intellectually dishonest.

Read the study for yourself: http://www.nllfs.org/publications/pdf/peds.2009-3153v1.pdf

@Heidi

We’re on the same side here but the children reported the teasing to their parents who then reported that on the questionnaire.

Okay, Chairm, now that we may finally be rising above the rhetoric and wall of words, I am very intrigued to hear some details of how you would propose “these can be recognized, and accorded protections based on vulnerabilities, without need to touch the marriage law and related social policy.” Please touch on specifics such as joint filing with the IRS, shared Social Security benefits, Medicare, FMLA, federal employee benefits, etc. I’m willing to go one state at a time with civil unions like in the NE and west, so I’m not asking for state-specific and local aspects of marriage. I’m curious about Federal topics. I myself know personally how important these are with my wife’s own stay-at-home mom arrangement, so it’s very real for me to ask these specific details.

I’m willing to entertain a parallel struction as long as it is not prejudicial and provides for parenting and old age of couples who commit to each other outside the rigid confines of your interpetation of “traditional” marriage. What do you have in mind?

LWW, it is not my interpretation of marriage. The core meaning of the social institution is not a tradition. Recognition and according special status certainly is deeply rooted in our traditions — both in terms of the law and the culture in the USA and far beyond.

Do not mistake that for an interpretation of a tradition.

As for provisions for designated beneficiaries, these do not require establishment of new type of relationship status at law. Marital status is a relationship status. You clearly imagine some sort of relationship status that would share the special status of the conjugal type of relationship but without its core meaning.

So the place to begin is not your laundry list but rather the meaning of the type of relationship you have in mind — its essentials without which it would not be that type. This is what would distinguish it from all the rest.

What might follow is a set of provisions or, if merited, a relationship status that fits that type of arrangement. The benefits from society via the government would arise from that, not from an arbitrary copy-paste from marital status.

I referred to the families who experience vulnerabilities due to the lack of (or diminishment of) sex integration and responsible procreation in their circumstances. Fatherless children, in particular, feature prominently in this societal concern regarding marriage.

When marriage strengthens, the shear number of such families decreases but that will take generations to accomplish, it is reasonable to expect. So in the meantime protections are called justified. But not special status.

So, no, a laundry list of demands that would amount to the merger of marriage and nonmarriage is not the starting line.

However, you may have a type of relationship or a kind of arrangement in mind — even if it is rather vague — and, if so, a relationship status may be what you’d imagine as a solution. If so — please start with the core meaning or the essential features of that type of relationship. Start with the thing itself before you bring in the government on behalf of all of society.

What you propose seems prejudicial. What do we want? What is our core meaning? We want to be free to raise our family and grow old together with societal tools which will allow those functions to be performed successfully. Perhaps the details (my “demands” as you put it) of what we need to perform successfully mirror marriage so much because our core meaning is identical.

It is not identical. You reject 1) sex integration, 2) provison for responsible procreation, and 3) these combined as a coherent whole.

As I said, a copy-paste is not the starting place.

What you propose is incoherent. It is sex-segregative. It is the antithesis of provison for responsible procreation. While the meaning of marriage is foundational to civil society, your SSM idea is a very recent attempt to mimick the conjugal type of relationship.

That’s very far from identical.

What the SSM campaign is after is the promotion of gay identity politics as superior to the core meaning of marriage, superior to the marriage law, and superior even to this foundational social institution. (The undermining of the constitution and rule of law is another side “benefit” that the SSM campaign has indulged in.)

Indeed, you still have not given reason, even a middling reason, to accord special status for marriage, much less for the type of relationship or arrangement you might have in mind. You do not distinguish between marriage and nonmarriage, in fact.

What I propose is not prejudicial but it legitimately discriminates between marriage and nonmarriage on the basis of what marriage actually is, at its core, as a type of relationship with great societal significance.

Your SSM idea might do that, too, but you have given no reason thusfar to believe it does or even can. I think it cannot possiblely benefit society the way that the core meaning of marriage benefits society. If it has merits, it also has demerits, and costs. If the cost of the special status of marriage is too high, and it should be demoted, as per your SSM idea, then, it really is up to your to do the basic groundwork and to explain your idea more clearly and convincingly.

I want to strengthen marriage, not render it as vague and meaningless as what you have described in regards to your SSM idea.

On the other hand, I readily agree with protections such as those that have long-existed, and are well-utlized, and which can be modified if there are actual problems in need of solving. These protections, or tools, are not denied to the vast range of the nonmarriage category, including the one-sexed arrangements — regardless of sexual orientation and regardless of the presence of children. Indeed, provisions are more keenly available where children are especially vulnerable. I thought that was one of your main concerns.

But begin with the core meaning. Can you not develop your idea more fully? For instance, differentiate the type of arrangement you have in mind from the rest of nonmarriage. If you don’t think there is differentiation, okay, start with that.

CutToTheTruth wrote, -“And in case you say this is harsh, and everyone should have the right to raise a child…I would say, says who? Where is that right granted? It’s not in the animal kingdom, as you’ll never have an offspring by two males or two females. It’s called nature. Hence doing or following what is designed by nature…i.e. natural. Just my opinion. I respect yours and hope you’ll respect mine. Not a judgement, as I said, just my opinion.”

Well then you should also agree that women should only ever have natural childbirth and never a cesearen section as it is just not, how did you say it, “natural” It is not found in nature, so C sections should never be performed. Or that they should never have pain reducing drugs during labor as it is not good for the infant. Right? Right?

In nature there are plenty of examples where the father does not stick around and the offspring is raised by the mother or groups of mothers. Sooooo if you really wnat to follow nature, I guess after insemination has occured (what you think is the only purpose of males) then the human fathers should skeedattle, that is what happens in some species in nature.

I know it is really sad for you, and breaks your hard little hearts, that neither nature nor science backs up your “opinion” of gay and lesbian parents. I believe it is time for YOU to evolve. It is time for you to say, “Oh my I really did not think the study would show that result. Isn’t that surprising. Wow I never would have thought that. Huh!” I will bet you $1,000 you do not actually know any gay or lesbian couples who are raising children. I mean really know them. For if you did you would not be surprised, nor continue to reach for any reasons for you to invalidate the study.

Everyone on the anti gay side, anyone posting, do you in fact know any gay or lesbian families (not just gays and lesbians individually), do you know any familes well, meaning not a casual acquaintaince. Or, “Well there are 2 gay guys who live on my street.”

Like it or not, gays and lesbians ARE reproducing AND deserve the same marriage rights as anyone else, for the benefit of the children you care so much about. What about the children of gays and lesbians do you really honestly prefer that they should be raised in a home where their parents are not married? If you care “about the children” you should be caring about ALL the children not just children born to hetrosexual families. After all YOUR expert witness in the Prop 8 trial said, “We would be more American the day we permitted same sex marriage”

On the topic of “responsible procreation”, I’ve already asked you to elucidate your perspectives here, so I will defer that topic to where it’s already unfolding.

As far as sex integration, I’m all for it. We just differ on whether it’s critical that there be one parent from each sex. I think grampas and grandmas, aunts and uncles, friends, and the like can provide an integrated perspective. I’ve already posted here asking what exactly you see that so differentiates the sexes. I think more information will help me understand all the daylight between us here.

As far as core meaning, I think I’ve been very clear, but let me try yet again. You have two consenting adults who want to dedicate their lives to each other, through adulthood and old age unto death. They may want to share this nurturing environment with children where possible, providing them a loving home and a great start on life. If so, they want the ability for one partner to stay at home during the childrearing years. They want the family to not pay a special penalty for said staying home, and they want both their resources in old age not to suffer for that gift to their children. They want to share with the other the right to make decisions, and to be present in all things. Love (agape) is central to this relationship and its meaning, love (eros) is optional.

Differentiating from non-marriage is the dedication of the couple, the intention of an exclusive life-long commitment with shared resources and decision-making, as well as the equally shared commitment to children where possible and desired.

Straight Grandmother said: “It is not found in nature, so C sections should never be performed. Or that they should never have pain reducing drugs during labor as it is not good for the infant. Right?”

Your thinking is unclear. Are you proposing that the unity of fatherhood and motherhood is as unnatural as C-sections or pain drugs?

Because, on one hand, it does not follow that society should categorically disunite fatherhood and motherhood when it comes to the social institution of marriage, which is pretty clearly a cultural/social adaptation to the opposite-sexed sexual basis for human procreation.

On the other hand, human beings are not beasts; as a species we are highy social which again is closely related to the very high degree and very prolonged vulnerability of the individual — especially during childhood. And since women are impregnated by men, rather than the other way around, or rather than asexually like say some other species, the social and the physiological are both taken into account in the natural way in which civilizations connect fatherhood, motherhood, childhood, and this universal human institution known as marriage.

So while we need not take our lead from beasts, whether they be primates or bacteria, we can discern the nature of humankind, of human procreation, and of human community and follow that much as best we can, as a society. What is natural for humankind is perhaps the starting place for considering how to account for how to organize our foundational social institutions.

Right?

You said: “I will bet you $1,000 you do not actually know any gay or lesbian couples who are raising children.”

You lost the bet.

And you earned demerits for your last paragraph’s misrepresentations.

This is hilarious. The United States of America—the great and mighty nation, highly sophisticated and developed. The nation that once sent men to the moon and brought them back alive, cannot figure who should go on honeymoon.

They continue to debate whether a man should marry a man and a woman another woman. What would aliens who land on this planet and listen in on this debate say: Too much learning has made them mad–and blind too. Can they tell which is a primitive nation and a developed nation?

The aliens —no matter how primitive or sophisticated would have the same kind of marriage that we have now on earth.

Soon the West would be hotly debating whether a sister can marry her brother. If lesbians make better parents would two or even three sisters not make even better parents. Forget the issue of a conjugal relationship, no need for that, because there’s Artificial Insemination.

Since they are so smart in the West they will discover a way to detect and deactivate genes that might might cause defects in the children of incestuous couples. So what’s the problem, they would say. Doesn’t it make sense to keep it all within the family instead of people going far and wide to find mates who may turn out to be axe murderers.

Sister marrying sister surely makes better sense than total strangers getting hitched. A brother and sister match-up might even be better. You get the much touted benefit of having a mixed gender couple. Again sex would be optional. AI to the rescue. Love and commitment that is all that matters. Agape!! Eros maybe. I can see a brilliant lawyer making these points animatedly to a judge who is completely floored by those arguments. How could society have been so judgmental and incestophobic all these years, he would intone.

The hlobby might say SSM should not be compared with incest —they only want to be compared with traditional or natural marriage for now until they succeed in destroying it.

Does incest not fare better in history than same sex marriage? Polygamy too. Furthermore, same sex relationship is a form of incest because it is like sex within the family, within the sisterhood or within the brotherhood. SSM is like sister having sex with sister.Taboo. Does anyone remember that word? Incest is sex in what should be sex free zones, where we can have other forms of nurturing relationships without sexual tension. The hlobby will ruin marriage along with same gender frienships.

SS parenting is also a form of polygamy because both are based on the same principle —- too much of a good thing. One wife good, two better, one mother good, two better., one father good, two better.

Just because studies claim that polygamous families are better for children is no reason for polygamy to be legalized. Polygamous families may indeed do better than monogamous families because the wives can divvy up babysitting, household and wifely duties. Just because gambling brings in revenue is no reason for it to be legalized. Since the homosexual lobby always likes to bring up slavery, let’s bring it up. Just because slavery aids a country’s economic growth is no reason to bring it back. Core principles do not have to be compromised for a desired goal.

2o yrs is not long enough. We need to see how well these wonderful children do in love, and work and marriage and parenthood, etc. Better still after they retire and reflect on life then they can tell us if having lesbian mothers is truly better. Sorry, not enough history of lesbian motherhood.

Why do we have to boast that we know same gender headed families? If we don’t know them it means those kinds of families are not rooted in our tradition. Millions of people around the world do not know families like that and we should keep it that way.Many around the world are more likely to know polygamous families. But the SSM lobby acts like they have a stronger claim to legalization than polygamous families.

Yeah, yeah, . Equality, they chant. For all? For every kind of family? Really? For singles too? Is what is left after every group gets marriage equality still marriage?

Studies confirm the obvious and bad studies have obvious flaws.

This study highlights the craziness of a society relying mostly on studies as its moral compass. What do you have left after you dispense with the Judeo-Christian principles upon which this nation was founded? The other two competing worldviews—-Secular-humanism and Islam. Which worldview should supplant the Judeo-Christian worldview the advocates of SSm are so eager to eradicate from the public square?

Some things ought not to be done simply because they ought not to be done. Anyone can come up with high sounding arguments for whatever new right they desire and find supporters. Why should single women not press for marital benefits, after all “single” is designated a a marital status on forms.Why would some not press for the right to marry their dogs? Sex does not have to involved.Love and commitment, that’s all that is required. It is good for the dog and good for owner, no not owner, partner.

Shall we then say: those who agree with the conclusions of the study are screwed up because they did not have lesbian mothers. That is their problem.

Judith, you absolutely have a right to your perspective, and a good deal of it resonates with me. Still, one quibble: most of those I speak with from the left don’t propose that gay males or lesbians are better than opposite-sex parents, they simply maintain there is no difference. That there is no “secret ingredient” between men and women that cannot blossom between two men or two women. We see no difference in parenting ability when non-sex/gender variables are consistent, just two human beings who love their kids. Whether ultimately right or wrong, I’m not debating (I conceded that battle, right Chairm?). We just see it differently.

Hopefully everyone will at least agree we all love our kids. I know I do…very much.

You may be “lawfully wed” as your cyber name states, but just that fact that you have to express that shows the TRUTH that homosexual counterfeit marriages are null and void from the word go. Why? God, who loves the homosexual as much as he loves those who are not, ordained and established the marriage covenant as a holy union between man and woman. Anything outside of those boundaries is not “lawful” nor recognized and in fact, carries harsh penalites (aids, cancers, other ailments…). Huge parenting disparities exist when same sexes are “married” with children and unfortunately the children suffer. Children know deep inside it’s wrong. Plain and simple. That’s why homosexuality has been in the closet for 6,000 years or so. It should be most obvious…two of the same sex in these contexts are un-natural, un-balanced and un-godly.