Ruth Institute Blog

“In particular, the work of scholars David Popenoe, Linda Waite, Maggie Gallagher, Sara McLanahan, David Blankenhorn, Paul Amato, and Alan Booth has contributed to this conclusion”

Hardly a group of un biased scholars.

LOL, umm first you summit an article from the Hate Group, FRC as your source? Hmm, gee, I hope to see the Aryan Nation weigh in on race relations.

Second, STILL Irrelevant, but gosh darn you try soooo hard.

Third, “The single parent” studies are just that, about single parents. Are you going try to outlaw any situation other than being widowed to remedy this?

Leland, give us something that the courts will agree to, this is just plain ridiculous.

These findings are being misrepresented. The Princeton professor writing in 1994 finds that children do better with married parents as opposed to single parents & step families. It doesn’t touch on adoptive families, families with donor conceived children or same-sex families.

The larger articles 10 points are equally misleading. To take one example:

[A number of leading professional associations have asserted that there are “no differences” between children raised by homosexuals and those raised by heterosexuals. But the research in this area is quite preliminary; most of the studies are done by advocates and most suffer from serious methodological problems. Sociologist Steven Nock of the University of Virginia, who is agnostic on the issue of same-sex civil marriage, offered this review of the literature on gay parenting as an expert witness for a Canadian court considering legalization of same-sex civil marriage:
Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research.]

This is true as far as it goes, however in that same court case several experts offered testimony that Nock was incorrect & went into extensive detail as to why. The court found that Nock was not credible and his critics were in fact correct that the evidence was in favor the proposition there was no difference in parenting same or opposite sex.

So on plank of the 10 point platform only stands because of a lie of omission. I am sure the rest would meet a similar fate if anyone checked. It is a shame that when they can’t win on merits people move on to lying & misleading.

Uh, I checked with several sources among the psychological community, and these people and their assumptions have been refuted as being based on a preconceived notion. Gallagher especially is not one who is taken very seriously.

It’s nice to talk about ideals but who ever meets these ideal standards? Certainly not straight people: look at all the dead womb babies, neglected and abused birthed children, etc. The fact is, all humans have the right to reproduce and to become romantically involved with another consenting adult. Presumably even kooks like Maggie Gallagher don’t question this.

Same-sex parenting is legal in all 50 states. ALL 50 STATES! So why victimize the children of same-sex couples by forcing them to be raised outside of wedlock??? What other cruelties does NOM/TRI have in store for innocent children?

Sean, you sound pro-life!

Betsy :
Sean, you sound pro-life!

Betsy, Pro-choice is pro-life… a concept to large to wrap your head around.

Mmm. No. No one who is okay with choosing death is truly in favor of life, not the baby’s life anyway.

I was hoping to read Sean’s response, not Bob’s.

Betsy :
Mmm. No. No one who is okay with choosing death is truly in favor of life, not the baby’s life anyway.

Really? So why exactly is your camp so keen on the death penalty? And don’t get me started on your pro-torture stance.

I’m for neither of those things. You shouldn’t jump to conclusions or make broad assumptions like that.

Mark :
“In particular, the work of scholars David Popenoe, Linda Waite, Maggie Gallagher, Sara McLanahan, David Blankenhorn, Paul Amato, and Alan Booth has contributed to this conclusion”
Mark: Hardly a group of un biased scholars.

When scholars offer facts and reasoning for their position, we should weigh what they say without bias.

If the mere fact someone has bias was grounds to dismiss whatever they say, then virtually everyone’s views could be dismissed.

Monty D. said: “same court case several experts offered testimony that Nock was incorrect & went into extensive detail as to why”.

Your assertion here is about something other than determining the social-scientific merit of Nock’s testimony.

Betsy, I am very much pro-life! I strongly support a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion or not, but once a baby is birthed, I believe it should get excellent health care, for instance. Too bad many misnamed “pro-life” people disagree, and believe birthed babies are on their own in terms of access to health care.

The truth is, most misnamed “pro-life” people are just anti-abortion. Big difference. I believe all humans deserve access to health care, a means to support themselves financially (a job), freedom from physical violence and other things crucial to the pursuit of happiness. Too bad the so-called “pro-life” folks don’t agree.

How someone can ignore the health needs of children is beyond me but conservatives seem to think that children aren’t worth the trouble or expense. Pathetic.

@bman

“If the mere fact someone has bias was grounds to dismiss whatever they say, then virtually everyone’s views could be dismissed.”

It is particularly dishonest to desire an outcome and then portray oneself as a scholar doing honest research that supports the outcome you want.

Would “scholarship” describing the superiority of white people over black people be acceptable to you? Even if such scholarship were authentic, then what? Does that mean we get to treat black people differently?

NOM/TRI are devoting significant resources advocating a public policy that hurts children. Doesn’t that bother you at all? Do you not have any reservations about that fact? Doesn’t it ever cross your mind that the US Constitution says to treat all citizens equally? Doesn’t your “fairness” impulse ever kick in, and you think to yourself, gee, if I were gay, I’d want the same rights as everybody else!”?

Betsy :
I’m for neither of those things. You shouldn’t jump to conclusions or make broad assumptions like that.

Betsy, that’s not jumping to conclusions, now read carefully. “Your camp,” as in most of the GOP and Christian right support the death penalty.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Crime.htm#Republican_Party

@bman
“When scholars offer facts and reasoning for their position, we should weigh what they say without bias. ”

And, if ANY of these “scholars” would offer FACTS and REASON, I would be glad to listen.

Ruth and co., citing some these people as social science experts would be like me citing westburough baptist as Christian experts, and their studies are being as misconstrued as the Bible is when people use it as an excuse to kill.

“A large and growing body of scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children.”

Okay? So what if that is true? Are you going to then outlaw single parenting? Divorce? Remarriage and step-parenting? Good luck, because life happens. Why is it that only same-sex couple-headed families are the ones who suffer the harsh brunt of your policy ideals? Why is it that you are denying intact married family status to same-sex couples and our children?

“If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children’s basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting.”

Okay, so two parents are better than one, I’ll totally give you that. Of course, the gender, sex or sexual orientation of those two parents is meaningless when it comes to forming healthy parent-child attachments. I should know. I am raising kids in a lesbian household and we are just a happy and loving family–two parents, a teenager, a toddler and a dog. There is no confusion over the parent-child relationships that exist between my partner and I and our children.

“The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child.”

I guess that means we should forget about adoption then, huh? The chance of abuse exists in married intact families as well–remember that we are talking about correlations, not causation, with any of the factors that can lead to an abusive home for a child, substance abuse being the number one factor. (I worked in child and substance abuse prevention before I went to law school and I know what the risk and protective factors for childhood abuse are).

Being raised in a two-parent, same-sex coupled household is not a specific risk factor for childhood abuse, any more than a child being raised by a stepparent or an adoptive parent(s) is one. The fact is, hundreds of thousands of children are right now being raised in this country by same-sex couples or single gay or lesbian parents, without the protections of marriage, including divorce and child custody laws. These children are being harmed by your stance on marriage equality for LGBT people. My partner and I are being harmed by your stance on marriage equality. OUR children are being harmed by your stance on marriage equality. Do you ever think about the families that you hurt with your position?

The so-called legal experts of the anti-8 litigants were open advocates of SSM. Oops.

Jamie Anne :
Ruth and co., citing some these people as social science experts would be like me citing westburough baptist as Christian experts, and their studies are being as misconstrued as the Bible is when people use it as an excuse to kill.

At least the Westboro Baptist church is upfront and honest about their hatred.

@Leland
Lol kay. You don’t know what ad hominem means I guess. I’m refuting your argument that they are scientific by pointing out that, well, many are not considered to be legitimate social scientists, and their studies are continuously misconstrued. So, no, I am not committing ad hominem.

Leland, logic and reason don’t seem to have much impact here. In my view, when someone repeatedly behaves ignorantly even after being presented with the facts, he or she invites criticism of self, in addition to criticism of argument. There is something especially dishonorable in sticking to a position that has been thoroughly discredited, is based on false premises and hurts children. Yet you persist.

If you want respect, don’t keep repeating the same ignorant statements.

[Your assertion here is about something other than determining the social-scientific merit of Nock’s testimony.]

No actually it’s not. As the original post said Nock was called to testify that the studies on same sex parenting had a number of errors (sampling etc.) that made their positive results unreliable. What the original post doesn’t mention is that rebuttal witnesses were called to show that Nock’s views were in error and that the positive results indicated by these studies were sound. The court reviewed both sets of testimony and ruled that Nock’s opponents were correct and that Nock’s evidence that the studies were unreliable was incorrect.

The court case clearly made a determination on the social-scientific merit of Nock’s testimony when they dismissed it and accepted that the studies were valid. To not mention this is a lie of omission and misleads anyone reading the original post.

@Sean

…but conservatives seem to think that children aren’t worth the trouble or expense.

When I look at my liberal friends (yes, I do have some) and my conservative friends, the former have 1 to 3 kids while the latter have 2 to 6 kids. So it seems to be the conservatives who are more willing to go to the trouble and expense of having children.

Sean:
The truth is, most misnamed “pro-life” people are just anti-abortion. Big difference. I believe all humans deserve access to health care, a means to support themselves financially (a job), freedom from physical violence and other things crucial to the pursuit of happiness. Too bad the so-called “pro-life” folks don’t agree.

Of course that’s a blatantly inaccurate and ridiculous mischaracterization of pro-life people, and I assume Sean knows that it is.

I haven’t encountered any pro-life people who think that people shouldn’t have access to health care, or who think that people shouldn’t have jobs, or who are in favor of physical violence.

@Heidi
““A large and growing body of scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children.”
Okay? So what if that is true?”

Then we must, as a society, acknowledge the legitimate need of a child for his or her parents instead of saying things like,
“Of course, the gender, sex or sexual orientation of those two parents is meaningless when it comes to forming healthy parent-child attachments.”
How could you say that to a child?
I personally know children being raised without their mother or father who say otherwise.

Monty you are over-reaching.

Nock’s analysis is spot on. The court did not decide what you claimed even if, to give you the benefit of the doubt, the court heard counter testimony that pleases your ears more.

Monty said:

“The court case clearly made a determination on the social-scientific merit of Nock’s testimony when they dismissed it and accepted that the studies were valid.”

Your interpretation places the court in a non-judicial role. Hence my earlier remark.

The court is not a panel of social-scientific experts. The cherrypicked studies can be legitimate without leading to the flawed conclusion that you would press onto them.

Monty then exagerated again: “To not mention this [the counter testimony] is a lie of omission and misleads anyone reading the original post.”

Your own remarks omitted the fact that the court is not the final say on social-scientific evidence. Its role is quite different. To press the court into a role for which it is neither competent nor properly empowered to exercise would be an abuse of judicial review.

If you support such an abuse, then, you might as well not omit that important part of your own viewpoint on this matter. To omit that, as you say, would be a lie of omission.

@Ginny
“So it seems to be the conservatives who are more willing to go to the trouble and expense of having children.”

Or the conservatives are more careless with birth control.

Right, Sean, if only we all agreed with your impoverished arguments, then, you would respect us. Wonderful.

Make better arguments and you might earn the respect you demand.

@Ruth
“I personally know children being raised without their mother or father who say otherwise.”

Yes, but are these children being raised by single parents or by loving same-sex couples? If it’s the former, of course they sense a lack, especially if their parents were once together. If on the other hand, the child was either born into or adopted into a loving same-sex couple household, there is no lack (at least for a large number of these children (See http://www.colage.org). My youngest isn’t pining for a father; she has two loving parents who meet her needs. And she’s too young for anyone to explain to her that her family is “not normal.” She just knows that she loves her family and we love her. Love, not gender, makes a family, Ruth. It’s sad that you cannot see this.

Heidi, do you include mother-sister pairs in your notion of loving twosomes? If not, why not? Please, do not feign sadness, just explain your reasoning.

You also said: “If on the other hand, the child was either born into or adopted into a loving same-sex couple household, there is no lack”.

How would the lack of either a mom or dad be negated, in your view? Is it the same-sex sexual attracton or behavior that does this trick for, say, the children in the care of a lesbian twosome? Please explain.

What needs do you imagine meeting that the mother-daughter twosome could not meet?

@Heidi
“Love, not gender, makes a family,”
Well said, Heidi.

The opposite-sexed nature of human procreation makes children, moms, and dads.

@Chairm
“The opposite-sexed nature of human procreation makes children, moms, and dads.”

That’s nice, but it doesn’t necessarily make a family, now does it?

“I haven’t encountered any pro-life people who think that people shouldn’t have access to health care, or who think that people shouldn’t have jobs, or who are in favor of physical violence.”

And I haven’t encountered any “pro-life” people who are nearly as interested in seeing that all people have access to health care, jobs and are free of physical violence, as they are in denouncing others who get abortions.

“Right, Sean, if only we all agreed with your impoverished arguments, then, you would respect us. Wonderful.

Make better arguments and you might earn the respect you demand.”

I couldn’t care less about your opinion of me, Chairm. You are, shall we say, not someone whose opinion matters much, given your obtuse, inscrutable opinions on here.

It does make a family. Happens more often than perhaps your gaycentric view of the world mahy permit.

You do care, Sean, since your stance is that

“when someone repeatedly behaves ignorantly even after being presented with the facts, he or she invites criticism of self, in addition to criticism of argument. There is something especially dishonorable in sticking to a position that has been thoroughly discredited, is based on false premises and hurts children.”

Your impovershed arguments invite criticism of the very sort you just asserted was justified. Especially given that you called sticking to such a thoroughly discredit position to be dishonorable. You have dishonored yourself and invite from readers, including myself, the lack of respect you have just said is deserving.

Someone said: “If you want respect, don’t keep repeating the same ignorant statements.”

The person who said that is someone whose opinion you value very much, apparently. Yet you repeatedly make ignorant statements anyway.

Meanwhile, it is better to focus on the content of comments rather than finding excuses, as per Sean’s odd self-accusing remark, to show disrespect for the person whose comments one might disagree with.

Act honorably and earn respect. Do the opposite and don’t.

@Heidi
How is it loving to choose to deprive a child of either a mother or father, and not even acknowledge their loss?
What would you say to the little girl I know, who is being raised by two men in a “loving” relationship, who said to her friend, “You’re so lucky to have a Mom.”?

@Ruth
And what would you say to the little boy I know, who is being raised by a man and woman in a “loving” relationship, who said to his friend, “You’re so lucky to have two dads”?

Depends on why he said it. Maybe he just wants a greater availability of someone to play ball with him.

@Sean

And I haven’t encountered any “pro-life” people who are nearly as interested in seeing that all people have access to health care, jobs and are free of physical violence, as they are in denouncing others who get abortions.

Most people, on whatever part of the political spectrum, have only one issue that they are passionate about and active in. A member of Amnesty International may care about the environment, but that’s not what he spends his time and letter-writing and protests on. A member of Earth First may care about collective bargaining, but he’s too busy preserving the local forest to go to Wisconsin and picket the governor.

Similarly, someone who is visibly “pro-life” is spending their time and efforts on this one cause, even though they may care about a lot of other social justice issues (health care, domestic violence, etc.) There are also people who are active in other areas (immigration, death penalty, etc.), who care very much about the right to life of the unborn–one just doesn’t see it as easily.

AND, “seeing that all people…are free of physical violence” is exactly what pro-life people are working for!

@Mark

Or the conservatives are more careless with birth control.

Ummm…no…these children were planned and welcomed (not “surprises” or “mistakes”).

@Chairm

“You do care, Sean, since your stance is that”

No, Chairm, reread my comments and pay attention this time. I said anyone who repeats discredited notions about the bible or human sexuality, someone who willingly remains ignorant invites personal scorn as well as scorn for their argument. I didn’t say they have to care about what people think of them. Clearly, many persons live quite contentedly in ignorance. Maybe ignorance really is bliss for some people.

An example might be that when you repeat again and again that the children of a married woman are presumed to be fathered by her husband, and someone points out that this “rule” is unaffected when same-sex marriage is legal, and you keep repeating the rule as a supposed impediment to same-sex marriage, well, that’s just ignorant.

You have repeated discredited notions, Sean. In your pose here you have remained willfully ignorant. Thus your remarks invite the very scorn you would blissfully excuse.

Let’s take your offered example of ignorance.

The sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity is vigorously enforced in our legal system. That sexual basis directly contrasts with your ready concession that SSM, at law, is not a sexual type of relationship.

Besides, nothing that an all-male or an all-female scenario might do sexually can justify presuming that two persons of the same sex have consented to co-parenting. So your concession fits the SSM idea.

But it does not fit the marriage idea nor marriage law. This is a legal presumption to which all who enter marriage give their consent — and society consents also. That is reflected directly in the reasonable laws of marriage regarding the sexual basis for consummation, annulment, adultery-divorce. These are legal requirements of marriage law.

As you have conceded, there is no sexual basis for SSM, at law. If people who’d SSM consent to this nonsexual type of relationship in the law, then, they do not consent to some type of one-sexed sexual basis for consummation, annulment, adultery-divorce. They’d be limited to giving their consent to some other basis, if anything. Likewise, as per your concession, society would consent to some other nonsexual basis for SSM.

Now read carefully: your own concession has discredited the notion that SSM is justified by same-sex sexual orientation and the rest.

And: your own concession has shown the contrast between marriage and SSM — the former being a sexual type of relationship in the law and the latter being not a sexual type of relationship in the law.

And: your own concession has shown the legal difference between that to which those who’d SSM is quite different from that to which those who’d marry. Mutual consent (of the participants but also of society) for marriage entails a sexual basis of which SSM is bereft.

Your ignorance of these things might have been sincere before, but no longer. You cannot have that excuse now. If you repeat that marriage is not a sexual type of relationship, at law, then, you are displaying wilfull ignorance — and a feigned ignorance at that. And, if you repeat that marriage and SSM are the same, then, you display yet more wilfull or feigned ignorance. And thus you’d invite the sort of scorn you have pre-emptively excused.