Homosexual marriage II

[Comic Book Guy]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Yes, families can put a lot of pressure on you, but hopefully with time prejudice may be eased.

For example, my father's family was rabidly prejudiced against Catholics ( my father excepted), and would have been totally opposed to any of us marrying one.
When my cousin moved to Vancouver from Edmonton when we were about 12, we were walking along in my neighborhood when we saw a classmate of mine.

"Is he Catholic or Protestant?" asked my cousin.
Somewhat surprised, I had to think for a minute.
"I think he's Catholic," I finally replied.
"Then let's get him!" he cried
"What are you, some kind of nut!?!" was my astonished rejoinder.

(Turns out it was partly a tribal thing; Alberta at that time had separate Catholic and Protestant schools in the public system- in practice Catholic and Everybody Else- and there was constant warfare between kids from each system.)

So I was quite surprised when my mother told me that my aunt- that same cousin's mother- was thrilled when informed that my youngest son was an altar boy in a Catholic church.

Actually, I think it's due to the same process that has led to (most)Fundamentalist Protestants burying the hatchet with the Scarlet Woman in America- uniting in the face of the greater threat from secularism.

Sort of like the neo-cons rushing to the defense of gay rights because it gives them another stick to beat the Muslims with.

I don't understand this, they are lucky enough to live in one of the worlds few secular, industrial republics. Do they desire to overthrow the current government and replace it with an oppressive theocracy or something?

[The Gaffer]

Apparently, lesbians may raise better kids than the rest of us:

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 a normative sample of American youth.

Get the full text

Go lezzas!

Mind you, I have my concerns about the sperm donor: clearly some sort of Jacksonian elf-ancestry is involved.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Which would seem to suggest that gay men would raise worse children . . . Oops.

EDIT: Some critiques that have been made here:

1. The sample is extremely small: 78 children of lesbian mothers and 93 children in the control group.
2. The sample of lesbian mothers is unlikely to be representative of the general population of lesbians. This is a sample of people who volunteered for the study, not a random sample. The most motivated and high-functioning people are the most likely to volunteer for a politically charged study.
3. The “results” are intrinsically unreliable. 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.
4. The results for the lesbian moms show no difference in any indicator between boys and girls. This is highly unusual, and supports the possibility that the lesbian mothers are under-reporting difficulties.
5. The children of lesbian moms do just as well, whether or not the couple had separated. This too, is highly unusual. Most studies show that children are harmed by disruptions in the parental relationship.
6. This study makes no attempt to control for possibly confounding factors, such as socio-economic status. According to previous reports on this sample of lesbian mothers, 67% were college educated, and the median household income was $85,000. The children’s high functioning could be due to the fact that these lesbian mothers have more resources than the average family.
7. The study does not report on how the control group of 93 children was selected. We have no way of knowing who these 93 children are, or how representative this control group really is.
8. 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.

3 shocked me when I realized it. That makes the study not about the children, but about the parents' evaluation of their children.

[The Gaffer]

Valid criticisms here.

1) Sample size. Yes, a problem, although less so if you are looking for very large effects. This limitation is somewhat offset by the longitudinal nature of the study: a 17-year follow-up is pretty good, and the drop-out rate was low.

2) Self-selecting sample: also a problem, although this is pretty standard practice for this sort of research.

3) Maternal reports as data: also a potential source of bias, but also standard practice for this this sort of research, unfortunately. Objective outcomes can be difficult to establish. Note also that this is not an entirely honest critique: although the mothers filled in the questionnaires, they used a questionnaire that has been extensively validated in other studies. So there is some evidence to say that the data might be resistant to reporting or recall bias than is otherwise the case. They didn't just sit them down and ask them if their kids were good little boys and girls.

4 & 5) If indeed lesbians are better parents, then one might expect there to be a difference in these patterns as well. Maybe they provide better parenting for boys? Maybe they handle their separations better than the rest of the population (on average)?

Also, if the critique 1) is made, re: sample size, then it would invalidate these criticisms. If the study isn't big enough to show a benefit for lesbian parents, then why would you expect it to be big enough to show a difference between boys and girls.

6) I suspect that this is the most likely cause of bias. Socioeconomic status is very strongly associated with childhood outcomes.

7) is bollocks. The study group is compared with a set of baseline data that has previously and repeatedly been validated for use as a baseline for this type of comparative study. If your blogger had bothered her arse to read the paper, she would have realised that. She would also have found Table 1, which contains lots of useful data about the study population and the comparison group. It would have actually her if she had, because this table makes clear that there are important demographic differences between the groups.

8) This was one of the primary objectives of the analysis: to look for the effects of stigmatisation. Given that, I find it logical that there would be detailed discussion of it.

Still, makes you think, eh?

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Also, if the critique 1) is made, re: sample size, then it would invalidate these criticisms. If the study isn't big enough to show a benefit for lesbian parents, then why would you expect it to be big enough to show a difference between boys and girls.

Actually I would think that #4/5 are more like supporting factors/points for #1 than anything that would invalidate the first statement. If you want to criticize those statements, I'd think it would be more for redundancy than anything else .

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I tend to think 1 and 2 are unfortunate, but necessary given the nature of the survey. It is a fairly narrow pool to draw from, after all.

I'm surprised to hear that 3 is par for course, as well, though. Don't they usually look at evaluations from schools, and other third parties? Of course, those can't be completely unbiased, either, but still anything's gotta be better than getting your information from the kid's mom.

Re: 4 and 5, do you mean to say that, because lesbians provide good role models for boys, and prepare their children for separation, we should NOT

Of course, you're right about 6, and about 7, as well. (And just for the record, not my blogger! Someone sent this to me, and I just thought I'd toss it out there; I have no idea who this person is).

Regarding 8: I'll be honest, I'm not entirely due to the clumsy wording, but I thought the point was not that they talked too much about it, but that they drew causal links too quickly.

Still, makes you think, eh?

Oh yeah. I, for one, strongly support legislation banning men from adopting.

[brownjenkins]

I'm not surprised. In my experience with a lot of parents as my four boys go through school and life, I've found fathers to generally be the more negative role models.

More often than not though, I think it is simply that women are generally taught to care more about other people than men are, and this carries over to adulthood. Men tend to be more self-centered.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

It's a carry-over of patriarchy; the man is still expected to be more self-determining, and the woman more nurturing.

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

It's a carry-over of patriarchy; the man is still expected to be more self-determining, and the woman more nurturing.

I tend to disagree with that statement, at least on a personal level, because I am much more 'nurturing' than either of my parents... especially my mother, and certainly more so than either of my sisters. None of us have any children of our own, but we have all cared for children on some level as baby sitters, and I have worked with children quite a bit in my various jobs. I think if you asked them, my sisters would agree with my statement.

I know some guys who definitely fit the description you're talking about Gwai, but I can also think of many men who I would consider to be very nurturing.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

So can I. I was speaking in generalities, and every generality is untrue.

I didn't mean to suggest that there were no counter-examples, or even that there weren't a good number of them. I was just talking about a general cultural tendency to expect certain behaviour models from people. Of course, people don't always fulfill these expectations, and awareness of that fact has risen to the point that it is no longer seen as any sort of transgression. From my experience, though, the general expectation still remains, even if its not as strong as it once was.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Tessar

Actually I would think that #4/5 are more like supporting factors/points for #1 than anything that would invalidate the first statement. If you want to criticize those statements, I'd think it would be more for redundancy than anything else .

Not sure what you mean here.

My point was that if the sample size was too small to show a benefit (or otherwise) from lesbian parenting, as this critique suggests, then it is likely also to be too small to show gender differences or "separation" differences, even if these variables are are independent from parental sexuality (an assumption for which we have no evidence anyway).

So, it cannot be valid to criticise the study for both.

I tend to agree that the majority of problems tend to be down to neglectful fathering. More so than mothering.

I'm surprised to hear that 3 is par for course, as well, though. Don't they usually look at evaluations from schools, and other third parties? Of course, those can't be completely unbiased, either, but still anything's gotta be better than getting your information from the kid's mom.

The problem here is that there is no ideal solution. "Objective" outcomes are hard to establish because they might not actually measure what you are interested in. They will also be more expensive to gather.

When you are talking about studying people's experiences (as they are in this study) you have to ask them! A thermometer is not going to help you.

The usual approach (e.g. in measuring "quality of life") is to spend a lot of time and effort developing a questionnaire that exhibits internal and external validity. These questionnaires could then be used as an outcome measure in a range of studies. This is the type of instrument they used in this study.

That said, I would also like to see correlation with objective outcomes.

Food for thought. Interesting to see the focus on the parents' sex rather than their sexuality. I tend to agree with that, although I wouldn't be surprised if gay men also made good parents. Gay parents generally have to be a lot more committed at the outset, and I would have thought that factor is at play here.

[Hirulin]

Personally, I don't see the point in marriage period! If two people love each other (regardless of gender) then why do they need the state to approve it! I've been with a guy for over a year and plan to spend the rest of my life with him, but I'd never dream of getting married to him!

With regards to raising a child, if a couple can provide a loving family environment and nurture the kids, then who cares what gender they are! I've known many a straight couple whio should be sterilised to prevent them from procreating! I think that there's too much focus on sexuality, it should be humanity thats the focal point!

I'm gay by the way!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Hirulin

Personally, I don't see the point in marriage period! If two people love each other (regardless of gender) then why do they need the state to approve it!

I'm with you on that. The government should work its way out of the marriage picture, as I expect it will over the next few generations.

Historically, government almost always left marriage alone. Then organized religion co-opted it for mostly taxation purposes, which was later taken over by government institutions as religious control declined.

The whole moral/societal arguments over the control marriage are very recent in nature.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Hirulin

Personally, I don't see the point in marriage period! If two people love each other (regardless of gender) then why do they need the state to approve it! I've been with a guy for over a year and plan to spend the rest of my life with him, but I'd never dream of getting married to him!

With regards to raising a child, if a couple can provide a loving family environment and nurture the kids, then who cares what gender they are! I've known many a straight couple whio should be sterilised to prevent them from procreating! I think that there's too much focus on sexuality, it should be humanity thats the focal point!

I'm gay by the way!

To be honest, I tend to agree with you about the state and marriage. I think it should be primarily a private matter, and the state really has little business there. As thing's stand, however, that's not the world we live in, so I feel it's necessary to work with what we have.

I will say, however, that I am kind of dubious about trying to separate sexuality from humanity; it seems to me that the two are inextricably connected.

[Midge]

Originally Posted by Hirulin

Personally, I don't see the point in marriage period! If two people love each other (regardless of gender) then why do they need the state to approve it! I've been with a guy for over a year and plan to spend the rest of my life with him, but I'd never dream of getting married to him!

With regards to raising a child, if a couple can provide a loving family environment and nurture the kids, then who cares what gender they are! I've known many a straight couple whio should be sterilised to prevent them from procreating! I think that there's too much focus on sexuality, it should be humanity thats the focal point!

I'm gay by the way!

As a newlywed, I should highly disagree with you on the purpose of marriage. When I was in high school, I planned on staying with my first boyfriend forever, but that clearly didn't work out. The PURPOSE of marriage is a commitment. While the government has slightly undermined this purpose by making divorce so easy, it's many times easier to just leave someone when times get rough and you feel like it if you don't have the high stakes in the relationship that marriage demands.

As to the purpose of government in marriage, I tend to lean toward the side of the less government in our lives, the better. It has a God-given purpose (like everything), but that purpose is NOT to regulate every jot and tittle of our lives.

For those of you who do not adhere to the Bible and its statutes, I do not see why gay marriage would be a problem. However, I am not among you, so don't tear me to pieces for being abhorred by the idea of the practice of homosexuality. Such a practice should not taint the beauty of marriage the way God created it.

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by Midge

don't tear me to pieces for being abhorred by the idea of the practice of homosexuality. Such a practice should not taint the beauty of marriage the way God created it.

If you would rather not be torn to pieces for your opinion, you should find a less abrasive way of expressing it than telling a gay man that you find him abhorrent. Or if you intend to express your opinion so strongly, then be prepared for consequences .

I am not meaning to imply that you should not express your opinion, but if you give a strong comment don't preface it by basically saying, "go easy on me."

[Hirulin]

if it's in their faith then people can express their views and thats fair enough, (although a better choice of words would be prefered! ) but I think you've hit the problem head on hun. You say God created marriage, not so, people created it as a means of showing to god that they are committed to their spouse as well as to him (and don't say that the bible says god created it, cos we all know the bible was written hundreds of years after the events had taken place and is mainly a way of keeping people in check [do NOT missunderstand me, I'm not bitching at christians or the bible, if it brings you peace, then good, believe in it with all your being and more!]) I just have trouble in trusting a god that gives you free will, then punishes you for using it! Besides, pagans had handfastings long before christian marriages came along and I still don't think their a good idea. If you think it's easier to leave someone just because your not wed to them, your wrong, sorry! A piece of paper is a powerfull item, it can bind and trap a person in a relationship which they may not want to be in, if you don't have that bit of paper, you're more likely to stick at it if only to prove it to yourself!


I really don't want to sound as tho I'm slating you, I believe that you have the right to worship who you will and act as you will. And if that makes you happy, then great! I just don't get how happiness, however it's achieved, can be abhorrent!

May your god's be with you, whoever they are.

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by Hirulin

If you think it's easier to leave someone just because your not wed to them, your wrong, sorry! A piece of paper is a powerfull item, it can bind and trap a person in a relationship which they may not want to be in, if you don't have that bit of paper, you're more likely to stick at it if only to prove it to yourself!

Hmmm, I feel that this is a rather dubious claim. I have typically found that my friends who are against marriage tend to be so because they do not want to be tied down to one person, not because they have a desire to prove to themselves that they can stick it out without a marriage license. But I have nothing other than my personal observations to base that statement off of.

[BeardofPants]

I am against marriage & have been with the BF since '94.

[The Gaffer]

It's hard to imagine a more diverse range of opinions.

I am married, and I am also divorced. I think both are great!

This is my question to Midge, and/or anyone who thinks that "commitment" is an end in itself: why do you want me to be miserable for the rest of my life?