Ruth Institute Blog

Only someone who believes that gays and lesbians are lesser human beings would believe that allowing them to get married would diminish the place of honor that marriage has in our society. If anything, including people into the institution of marriage who desperately want to be a part of it would strengthen marriage by making that goal universally attainable by all who want to make a lifelong commitment to love, honor and cherish another person.

Also, although you don’t identify the governmental policies that allegedly make marriage unpopular in the underclasses, I suspect that you are again discussing welfare policies. In the past, I would have agreed with you that welfare policies penalized people who wanted to stay together and/or get married, because a family was not considered in need of financial support if a man was involved in the picture. This policy caused many women to refrain from marriage so they could receive benefits to help support their families, and it caused them to lie about father involvement. But welfare policies have changed since then, and many states now try to help the entire low-income family, not just single women with children. It’s not government policies that help the poor that discourage marriage these days, although those policies could more liberally encourage families to stay together by not penalizing families who make too little to actually get by on, but too much to qualify for assistance. From what I’ve read recently, what has made marriage unpopular in the underclasses is the refusal of men to grow up and be responsible for their families. Women don’t need an extra child to take care of, and if that is all the “baby-daddy” ends up being, they absolutely should kick his lazy butt out the door. Until these men stand up and act like grown men–put away the video games, the porn, the alcohol and drugs and get an education and a job–they are not going to be considered “marriage material” by women.

As for the claim that “fatherhood is hard” and “people need reasons to do it,” are you implying that loving your child and wanting that child to be successful in life isn’t a strong enough incentive for men to do right by their kids? How sad. I guess that is what differentiates the men of honor from the boys. A man of honor is going to step up to the plate and take care of the kids he brings into this world, regardless of whether he marries their mother or not. My daughter’s father did, and I know a handful of single dads who are taking care of their kids even though the mothers walked out. It’s just too bad that we as a society don’t raise our boys to be responsible for the children they help to create. That is what needs to change, not government policies that help poor people. And how awful is it that anyone would think their own marriage was diminished by allowing others the equal protection of the marriage laws? Wow. So terribly sad to have such a narrow-minded and bigoted point of view.

Quote:
“Only someone who believes that gays and lesbians are lesser human beings would believe that allowing them to get married would diminish the place of honor that marriage has in our society.”(?????????)

So what’s with the ad hominem, Heidi? I went ahead and read your entire post even though I didn’t really need to read any further than the first sentence to see that you haven’t bothered to read much on this blog before going on the attack. If you had looked around a little you would know that nobody around here considers anyone else (regardless of sexual orientation – or political viewpoint for that matter) to be “lesser human beings”. You also would have noticed that Dr. J has (on a number of occasions) enumerated a few ways (for starters) that same-sex ‘marriage’ would indeed “diminish the place of honor that marriage has in our society”.

SSM redefines marriage in four ways:
1) It diminishes the entitlement of children to a relationship with both biological parents
2) It diminishes the identification of parental roles with biology
3) It requires the state to determine parental relationships, instead of recognizing biological parents
4) It enshrines the idea that mothers and fathers are interchangeable, that children don’t really need mothers AND fathers

Same-sex marriage does none of those things:

1) Since when are children “entitled to a relationship with both biological parents?” Why is adoption legal if that is the case? Why is divorce legal? You do realize that straight couples also use reproductive technology too, right? Is a child being deprived of his biological father if his mother is artificially inseminated because her husband is infertile? You cannot blame gays and lesbians for the messiness of life. Not every child alive will have a relationship with both biological parents, and that is OK if that child is loved by the parents who actually do the job of parenting.

2) Parenting is not about biology–it is about PARENTING. It’s like that silly old saying–”any man can father a child; it takes a real man to be a daddy.” My sister’s boyfriend (now husband) has raised her daughter–not his biological child–from the time she was about one year old. She’s now ten, and her biological father has showed back up into the picture after abandoning her when she was just a baby. Guess which man she calls “daddy?” Guess which man she wants to be around? If you guessed non-biological dad, you would be correct. He is the man who has been there, caring for her, loving her, protecting her, and raising her. He is her father, not the man who contributed the sperm.

3) The state already does determine parental relationships, and focuses less on biology and more on attachment, as it should. Using the above example, let me tell you that my sister’s husband has parental rights for a child that is not his biologically. And it’s not because he married her mother. It is because he has parented the child. This approach is the one that is in the best interests of children, because it takes into account the adults who have actually formed parent-child relationships with children. Biology is meaningless unless the biological parent has done the work of parenting. But it is the fact of parenting, not the contribution of genetic material, that makes someone a parent to a child.

4) It does no such thing; and frankly, children DON’T really need mothers and fathers–they need parents who love, support, nurture, and protect them. There is no magical gender configuration that equates to healthy and happy kids. But don’t take my word for it–ask my kids, ask other kids of gay and lesbian parents, ask kids who have been raised by family members like grandparents, aunts and uncles, ask kids of adoption, ask kids successfully raised by single parents. Then talk to the kids who were raised by mothers and fathers who stayed together but who ignored them, neglected them, abused them, or fought and argued all the time.

Finally, the most important point to be made is that gays and lesbians are ALREADY raising children. The cat is already out of the bag. You are waging a war that has already been won, at least culturally. We are just doing it without the protections of marriage, and it is attitudes like YOURS that harm our children. Who’s truly harming “the kids?” People who refuse to provide the equal protection of marriage to ALL children, not just the ones born to and raised by their straight biological parents (and those who are adopted by straight people, and those whose parents divorce and remarry another person, and yeah, every other parenting situation except those involving gay people). Hypocritical and cruel.

Really strong statement from Heidi:

“Only someone who believes that gays and lesbians are lesser human beings would believe that allowing them to get married would diminish the place of honor that marriage has in our society.”

I don’t believe they are “lesser human beings” — I believe that separate isn’t equal.

I believe that when it comes to family, to parenthood, and to marriage that biological gender has a lot more to do with anything than ‘sexual orientation’. A partnership of two men or two women can never be “equal” to what comes naturally to a man and wife.

Separate just isn’t equal, so gays and lesbians are allowed to marry, just like everyone else. Not differently, because orientation isn’t even a factor.

If you are accusing me of predicting the future, you are just as guilty of it. I guess it comes down to seeing the glass as half-full or half-empty. You are afraid of change and of greater human freedom and respect for differences. I am not. Same-sex parents are already raising kids. Allowing them the protection of marriage will only strengthen their families, and will do no harm to heterosexuals. Live and let live man.

Allowing them the protection of marriage will only strengthen their families

And the only persons keeping these kids from “the protection of marriage” is their “parent’s” who choose not to get married. Why? Something about gender bias, I gather.

I’ll write to the rest of this later, after work and I put the kiddles to bed. But I have to respond to Marty and his perspective on how easy it is for a gay person to find attraction in the opposite sex.

I have a friend who grew up fundamentalist Christian. He was the ultimate church-goer. He participated in ministries, and his connection with kids was incredible. Few people in this life do I trust more with my kids. He dated a lot of women, but never connected beyond friendshp. The women themselves generally agreed they couldn’t connect to this friend except on the same level as their girlfriends. No fireworks on either side. He was a 30 year old virgin. He’d fought what he really was all his life- a gay man. His church friends dropped him at light speed when he came to terms with what he was. It was really sad, but he handled it with great honor and love. He’s now dating men and trying to find a lifemate, someone he can give himself to forever, just like you’d hope any Christ-loving man would do.

Once I heard a guy ask him, “How can you know for sure you don’t like sex with women if you never tried?” His perfect answer, “How do you know you don’t like sex with men if you haven’t tried?” Marty, have you tried? Can you imagine trying? If not, that’s how he, and others like him, feel about sex with the opposite sex. It’s not a bias. It’s part of who they are- they just KNOW.

I find both men and women extraordinarily beautiful, and have known and loved many of each. Does this make me bisexual? Hardly, because I’m not sexually attracted to men. Could I be? Of course I could — as I said, I know some exceptional ones. But I’ve closed my heart and mind to the possibility, as it seems, you have as well.

If you can’t find extraordinarily beautiful men around you who are worth loving, then you simply aren’t looking.

I wish to say I never will claim a “Kumbaya world that will be ushered in once we ‘redefine’ marriage.” It would simply be a victory one family…one child…at a time. Whether we allow same sex couples to marry or not, we’ll still have societal problems. If we do allow it, the problems of society overall will not increase or decrease. It’s a drop in the bucket and will have no net effect on the big picture- positive or negative, not like the 50% divorce rate among heterosexuals or the similar numbers of teens having pre-marital sex. The rate of male incarceration and the meth epidemic has far more negative an impact on lower income families than gay marriage. I think our Good Shepherd said it himself when speaking about the beam in our own eye. You all are fighting the wrong battle, and therefore risk losing the war for all of us.

@Marty: I won’t say I haven’t found such men as you describe. But you miss the point for me- I’m Married! I can appreciate from a distance, but I’m not at liberty to finger the goods any more than the next wife. It would be a betrayal of my vows, my promises to her family, and my kids. Disgusting that you’d even suggest that.

But for others, they just can’t make the connection at all. It’s not in their make up, not what their Maker chose for them. I’m certainly not arguing with Him.

As I said, it was 100% your choice Lawfully. But I can’t make it “equal” for you.

“Instead I said it is reasonable to expect such and such given past experience with large scale fatherlessness.”

But Ari, you are comparing apples with oranges. You take statistics from broken heterosexual families and single parenthood and then assume that all of their problems stem from the absence of a father. And you know something? You’re probably right that a large part of those children’s misery can be attributed to the lack of father involvement. But this is because these kids are missing something they once had, they are living with the after-effects of painful and conflict-filled marriages and divorces, they are dealing with issues of abandonment, and poverty, and a myriad of other problems associated with family breakdown. To assume that the children of same-sex parents in a loving and intact relationship will similarly suffer (and you appear to focus on lesbians perhaps because the false association of fatherlessness with same-sex marriage doesn’t work when a kid has two daddies) is both intellectually lazy and dishonest, especially when all of the reputable studies prove that is the quality of the parenting not the gender of the parents that ensures healthy outcomes. How many children of same-sex parents do you know Ari?

And really, if same-sex marriage causes heterosexual men to further abandon fatherhood even more than they already have, well then, that says more about heterosexual men than it does about same-sex marriage and parenting. Perhaps your focus should switch to the problems associated with American heterosexual masculinity as it relates to parenting.

@Arlemagne: Once again, you cannot blindly equate kids born and raised by a long-standing and dedicated same-sex pairing to single parent families, especially where divorce is involved, and then compare to long-standing hetero families. Too many variables. You need to compare like families with the only variable being the sex of the parents.

Wholesome, two parent families of same-sex parents raising kids have not been widely known until recently. Of this, we can agree. There’s lots of data regarding single-parenthood, and as a statistic it isn’t pretty. There are wonderful examples of single parents doing well- some of their kids have become president, but as a statistic they don’t fare as well. We agree here too.

As far as your restatement, my personal belief is that both men and women have important and unique contributions to make to society and child-rearing. I think I have been consistently clear that I think kids need both men and women deeply involved in their lives as they grow. Where we appear to differ is that I believe a grandfather, uncle, or close family male friend can provide an effective male influence to kids reared by lesbians (they have in my case). Likewise, insert distaff examples for gay men with kids.

I believe kids need two caring and involved parents. These parents need to be invested in the kids their entire childhood- consistently. They need to at least respect each other, and the kids need to see this. In my experience, whether these two parents are both male, both female, or one of each makes no practical difference.

And while I think for many reasons kids should know (or at least know of) their genetic parents, based on the opinions of several very dear friends of mine who were adopted anonymously into loving families, no I don’t hold as absolutely necessary knowledge of either or both genetic parents. It’s nice, and kids when they grow up will have vexing questions if they never knew him or her, but it doesn’t have a substantive impact on the quality of upbringing as long as the two parents I mentioned earlier were present.

Again, you asked my thoughts, and there you have them. They smell like all other opinions- but like everyone I have them, and they’re mine.

Two comment you are quoting appears to still need to be approved. Others may not be able to see it.

It is unreasonable to EXPECT social pathology given the initial indicators, in the form of my family at least…and Heidi’s and others I know, are positive. It is reasonable to SUSPECT, and encourage more data. Still, we’ve never held that we Americans must wait for absolute confirmation an idea is fully sound before we proceed. Especially when the current model isn’t perfect either (50% divorce rate).

Such an eventuality isn’t impossible. Of course it isn’t. But then again, we’ve got plenty of pathologies from the current model. I don’t see us getting it any more OR less wrong than what we use now.

Again, Men and women make a difference in a child’s life. I don’t buy that a grandfather or other close male influence couldn’t provide the key element. Or, alternately, a grandmother or other close female relative when we’re talking about gay male unions. I DO NOT ascribe better parenting to women- men are just plain awesome as well. I am not a misandronist.

As far as your conclusion, I’m going to show my geek colors and quote Obi-Wan Kenobi from Empire Strikes Back. “You will learn many of the truths we cling to depend on a certain point of view”. Reality in value judgments like this are notoriously subjective. The research hasn’t been done- all we have are some initial studies and a lot of anecdotes, and almost all of them are positive. No reason not to allow it to continue given the enormous impact it has on the lives of the people involved. Heck, I’ll go for just letting the states decide and getting the Feds entirely out of it. I’ll take the NE, you can have the SE (Please!). Just don’t ghetto these marriages federally with DOMA’s federal application portions (ban on importation of same sex marriages can stand for those states that don’t want them) when they’re accomplishing the same purpose- childrearing. That’s reality, from an equally relevant point of view to yours.

Besides that, lawfully, what the voters of this country have said is that they don’t want to risk the success of our society on a social experiment. We don’t need to have definitive proof there will be no bad consequences. We have already seen enough negative consequences to know we don’t want to risk any more. Companies being forced to hire cross dressers? Give me a break! Bathroom laws that let any guy go into the women’s bathroom because he ‘feels’ like a woman that day. No! People being able to change their sex on their PASSPORTS, for God’s sake, BEFORE any kind of sex reassignment surgery, effectively hiding their identity! NO! And don’t think we don’t get it that this idiotic push to repeal DADT in the military isn’t a push to federalize ‘marriage’ when military personnel are ‘married’ in their home state and posted to other states or out of the country. The intent is for force those other states and countries to recognize the so-called ‘marriages’ of our military. See, you just aren’t really understanding how far this is going. You’re still only thinking about your little family and circle of friends. It’s much larger than that. Look at what just happened in Boston: Gay “Pride” week came on with a vengeance with all kinds of horrible, lewd (we’re talking bondage and simulated sex and nudity) behavior being seen as ‘acceptable’ because to air any kind of objections would be called discriminatory. Again, give me a break! This is just plain going way too far, and it isn’t just about you.

LW: “my personal belief is that both men and women have important and unique contributions to make to society and child-rearing. I think I have been consistently clear that I think kids need both men and women deeply involved in their lives as they grow. Where we appear to differ is that I believe a grandfather, uncle, or close family male friend can provide an effective male influence to kids reared by lesbians”

For the record, I’d like to thank @lawfully_wedded for her forthright and thoughtful participation here, even in light of my own occasionally antagonistic counter-opinions. I’m certain we’d be great friends…

But to the quote above, which I don’t neccesarily disagree with, I can only ask WHY? WHY should a grandfather or uncle have to step in and do the job ordinarily expected of a father? Not that they can’t — countless examples show that they can be invaluable mentors to your boys. But why not just be an uncle or a grandfather instead? Certainly THOSE roles are also uniquely valuable in their own right… but why not a Father instead?

Because Mommy doesn’t like boys, and because Mommy said so. Call Uncle Bill if you’re having problems with baseball, or pornography, or being teased on the playground…

As if that’s Uncle Bill’s responsibility.

@ Arlemagne:

1) In my view, which again is just mine, suspect means it is possible, expect is that it’s likely. You asked me what was reasonable. Based on the data, which I will agree is either anecdotal or inconclusive, there is perhaps reason to suspect bad things might happen, but it’s not carried by the data to date- and by data I mean specific to same-sex couples otherwise matched to heterosexual couples for other variables and NOT single-parent circumstances.

2 and 3) Then let’s allow it to be tested. Let’s allow federally-recognised marriages to be performed in states which decide by whatever means to allow it. Remove the DOMA restriction forbidding federal recognigition of such unions, but only in those states that allow it. If you live in MA or IA, you get to file jointly and draw Social Security. If you live in AL, you don’t. You can’t import a marriage from MA to NE and have it recognised, by state or feds. Military members would count as the state of record, as is done now for other things related to taxes. DOMA would protect states rights BOTH WAYS, and we’d then get a chance to gather real data. Until we allow states such latitude, we’ll never get real data either way because few same-sex unions will be truly comparable to heterosexual ones.

4) I think you’re right- it was RotJ. And I agree with you about eppys 1-3. I’ve seen each once, and regret each time. And as to laws of nature, those have been tested- over and over. Yes, even gravity- just ask Da Vinci. Let’s try what I propose in 2 and 3 above, and then we have something “real” to talk about. And I can’t view YouTube- it’s blocked at least at work. And speaking of work, I should finish this up and get back to it…

@Karen: Once again, I am not defending the fringes of any movement, however vocal they may be and seemingly large within the community. Those who act flamboyantly and with disregard to the general sensibilities are a minority- trust me. They do not represent me, they do not speak for me. If you follow the logic you put forth, then all heterosexuals must take personal responsibility for incest and pregnancies of teen girls by their dads, the 50% divorce rate, scismatic Mormon polygamy, etc. I don’t hold you responsible for such actions, don’t hold the provocateur gays against me.
As far as DADT, as I mentioned above, there are ways to make it work. A fraction of the effort being made to stop gay marriage entirely is all it would take to allow such a way to be found that would respect the rights of TX AND of MA.
As far as the transgender question, do we want to have that discussion here? Seems slightly off topic, but I’m game if you are.
And ultimately, it is about me…and those like me. There are misbehaving heterosexuals, but I don’t advocate denying them marriage because of it. Why hold that generalizing criteria to me?

@Marty: Thank you, Sir! While debating with you gives my heart rate a workout similar to my morning run- if just because this is a *VERY* personal issue to me, it is a pleasure to learn from someone who stays civil. I hope that you feel the same way, and that even though you are not going change your conclusions on the matter, you at least find my perspective enlightening.
Ultimately, Marty, I have to give two explanations. In my case, I won’t divorce. Simple enough- I am true to my vows and cherish the Institution of Marriage too much to let outside forces sunder what God has created- at least as far as my wife and I are concerned. That said, you yourself have never tried to sunder it in my case (others have), and I appreciate that very much. Therefore, I must assume you mean for others, couples that have not “gel’ed” or that have not yet taken on children. In those cases, it comes down to how these brains, these hearts, work. They know who they are attracted to, who gives them a sense of completion. It’s the same thing that creates the magic for heterosexuals. And such couples then want to share that magic with their kids, again same as hetero couples. Ultimately, this is all something we *know*. Just as you *know* the Good Book is the Word of God. Or you *know* you like women.

And be fair, the call to Grandpa or Uncle James (in my case) doesn’t go out often. We handled baseball just fine, and being teased. My son is 9yo, so haven’t dealt with the porn yet, but I’m confident we’ll navigate that as well.

In the end, I am not asking anyone here to become gay. I’m not asking anyone here to tolerate being silenced. I’m not asking anyone here to embrace something they don’t like. I’m not asking that public lewd behavior, by ANY sex or orientation, be accepted. All I’m asking is that people be allowed to love their soulmate and to live their lives in peace, with ALL kids getting the support equal to any other child in similar circumstances. Whether we call it marriage or not for same sex unions, I’m not worried over. Just give everyone the opportunity my wife and I have, and all heterosexual couples have, to support each other and their kids with the benefits that currently are accorded to only some couples and not all. We’ll take it from there, quietly and lovingly, within our own families and, like hetero couples, do the best we can by our wonderful kids.

So in your eyes, when it comes to gender at least — men & women, husbands & wives, mothers & fathers — separate IS equal, after all?

lawfully_wedded_wife said: “”by data I mean specific to same-sex couples otherwise matched to heterosexual couples for other variables and NOT single-parent circumstances.”

1. Why do you refer to “same-sex couples” on one hand and “heterosexual couples” on the other hand? Do you mean homosexual couples and heterosexual couples; or do you mean same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples? There is a difference that you seem to blur in your comments.

And why do you emphasize the number two (i.e. couples)? Nothing in your comments has provided good reason for that limitation in the notion of parenting that you hold or in the notion of union that you propose. Maybe it is unstated because you assume all readers share your unstated reason(s). Please explain. If more than one is better, then, three or four or five would be as good as or even better than two … ?

This is strongly implied in the remarks about adding non-father men into the mix. Or including the biological dad with the mom-mom duo. Which leads to the next point.

2. Please cite the data in which the matching you referred to is possible. What are the criteria for this matching that you have in mind?

Most (by far) children in same-sex (i.e. homsexual) households are from the previously procreative relationships (typically marriages) of one or both adults in the household. Most are therefore children of divorced or seperated mom-dad duos. The nonresident mom or dad would have to be considered an irrelevancy if most of this subset of children in same-sex households are to be included in the pool of study subjects.

If you mean to match users of IVF/ARTs, then, that would eliminate most of the mom-dad duos who use such procedures since the vast majority (more than 90%) do not use third party gametes. And early indications are that the 10% who do will experience additional stress in their marriages and parental experiences. So comparing the mom-dad duos with the mom-mom duos would be confounded on many different levels.

Frankly, I think you have an opinion on these matters without actual solid social scientific support. And I think that you assume that the rest of us have formed our opinions on marriage and on mom-dad parenting in a like manner. Is this what you assume?

I also think that your bias is political — it happens to arise from pro-gay bigotry — and you imaginen it to be benign if not perfectly splendid. Else you would not be relying so heavily on a glass that is 90% full of opinion. Note — the glass is not half full and half empty.

Heidi said:

“To assume that the children of same-sex parents in a loving and intact relationship will similarly suffer (…) is both intellectually lazy and dishonest, especially when all of the reputable studies prove that is the quality of the parenting not the gender of the parents that ensures healthy outcomes. How many children of same-sex parents do you know Ari?”

No such studies exist. No such studies “prove” what you claimed.

Before you toss around phrases like “intellectually lazy and dishonest”, please do a reality check.

There are no children of same-sex parents. All of us are born equal, of a mother and a father. But you meant something else, right?

You meant “social parent” to be divided from “biological parent”, yes? This is of the utmost importance to your emphasis on “quality of parenting”. You begin with this division and then circle back to your proposed conclusion.

You meant either that there are children who have been adopted by “same-sex parents” or who have been procured through third party procreation by which the father or the mother is excluded as a bonafide parent.

In both scenarios, the children have man-woman parents but either mom or dad is absent due to death or exclusion (self-exlcusion is no less an exclusion). In civilized societies, a child has a birthright to both parents: the mom and dad are expected to stick around and be responsible for their children and to each other — barring tragedy or dire circumstances. There is social approbation for the unity of motherhood and fatherhood and this is expressed in many ways — the most obvious is the marital presumption of paternity. But such approbation is neuteralized in your opinion; it is in also, in the context of marriage, negated as hateful and unjust in your opinion. So you would actually replace approbation with disapprobation — with neutrality as a stepping stone. Right?

I mean, if sex (what you called gender) is of the utmost importance to “same-sex couples” but is of no importance, or even is considered determental, to the children raised by such couples, then, the double-standard becomes rather obvious. Evidence and reason be damned — you have your pro-gay bigotry to support your opinion.

—–

Note: the phrase “same-sex parents” is misleading if you mean to emphasize homosexual parents who form parenting duos. You are referring to a sexual context for the adult relationship; you are assuming that this same-sex sexualization is highly significant to the parent-child relationship in some unstated way. The underlying assumption is invalid, I think, given the reputable social scientific evidence available. Your opinion might over-ride the evidence, of course.

To clarify, when I referred to sex, I meant sex differentiation. That is, being a man or being a woman is significant to the same-sex sexualized relationship; but it is, in your opinion Heidi, insignificant ot the parent-child relationship — always.

I am confident you’d agree that objectively the truth is that sex differentiation exists and is not a purely social construct. But I am equally confident that you believe that motherhood and fatherhood are purely social constructs that are expendable. I agree that these are social constructs, but not purely so, and that the constructs arise from the fundamental biological and physiological facts of human sexuality.

The nature of humankind is two-sexed and the nature of human procreation is opposite-sexed; thus the nature of community is both-sexed and not sex-neutral or one-sexed. Family is the first community and as a social construct it fits what is given — what we cannot and have not constructed culturally — i.e. our embodied sexuality.

How “sexual orientation” fits into the social construct of motherhood and fatherhood remains a mystery in terms of the gaycentric viewpoint of yourself and others who have made similair remarks here and elsewhere. Sex diffrentiation matters greatly, of course, to the concept of sexual orientation; and then there is the emphasis on purity — purity or exclusivity — of sexual attractions that is assumed. That is, since this sexual attraction over-rides the nature of humankind, of human procreation, and of human community, it is given the highest priority. Higher than the birthright of children to the mom-dad duos.

No mom-mom duo can exist without a dad having been instrumental to the “parenting” scenario constructed by the two women. He is negated, marginalized, or simple made invisible by the social construct of the mom-mom duo. And in pressing that construct as the equivalent of the mom-dad duo, folks like Heidi and LWW are asking society to throw away far more than what they assume is “homophobia”.

To make the two constructs equivalent is to devalue the mom-dad duo. And this, ironically, and stupidly, is being pressed against the fact that sex differentiation is of the utmost importance to the mom-mom duo — the sexualized relationship as context for raising children.

Intellectually, what Heidi and LWW are pushing — their rather ill-supported opinion based on their pro-gay bigotry — is deconstruction of marriage, fatherhood, motherhood, and the social scientific evidence that is not tolerated by their ideological bias. It is not really the construction of a better alternative that they are pushing here. It is rather the tearing down of the fundamentals that do not fit their form of gay identity politics.

LWW, you have referred to the sorry state of the social institution of marriage in our society. How is that going to improve through the elevation of your viewpoint — to the negating of the motherhood and fatherhood (at least the unity of those two fundamentals) and the negating of the core meaning of the social institution of marriage (i.e. the merger of SSM with marriage?)

Marriage means integration of the sexes, provision for responsible procreation, and these combined as a coherent whole — a social institution that is foundational to civilization. SSM means none of that. It is not foundational. It is not sex-integrative but sex-segregative. It is not provision of responsible procreation but rather of the opposite. SSM’s meaning is not the same as the meaning of marriage. So a merger of the two would mean the abolishment of latter.

Such a thing would be regressive and a huge leap backward.

@Chaim: You mentioned my “it happens to arise from pro-gay bigotry”. First off, while I believe all dedicated couples should have the same rights and responsibilities, I don’t subscribe to any particular agenda. Your wording suggests that by being “pro-gay”, I feel that model is superior in some way. I do not. As far as “bigotry”. In my mind, bigotry involves some expression that takes from others. I do not wish to take anything from marriage as it exists today, at least no more than many adherents to it have done themselves. In my experience and by my own opinion colored by that experience, same-sex couples will do no better or worse than opposite-sex couples. We’re all human, we’re all imperfect, and we’ll all mess it up sometimes. Everyone would be given the chance, though, to make it work…just as my wife and I (20 years married) have as two women or my parents (42 years married) or my sister/brother-in-law (26 years married) have had as a woman and man.

As far as the research, I think children raised from infancy by couples that are otherwise matched would be fine. I do believe divorce would have a noticeable effect on the data based on studies regarding the impact of divorce on kids, but I’m willing to call any children born or immediately adopted by a couple matched. And yes, that can be seen as arbitrary. Most studies, good studies, start with reasoned arbitrary criteria. An hypothesis is a new idea, and must be studied at first with some presupposition- which is then tested. The key is to determine criteria up front based on reason, and then keep to it throughout the study. Studies die when the rules change mid-stream.

Anyway, my point is there is a paucity of evidence. I’m not averse to studying it. That said, we must allow some locations to provide an environment where it can be studied. That’s where my proposal to all states to go their own way came from. When all other things are equal, we can get good data. In the meantime, we have material like this as well as anecdotes like my own family to suggest it is worthy of study.

LWW said: “In my mind, bigotry involves some expression that takes from others. I do not wish to take anything from marriage as it exists today, at least no more than many adherents to it have done themselves.”

You wish to make marriage mean less and less. You’d have the law and the culture abolish the core meaning of marriage. That would be taking a great deal away from all of society.

Those with whom you disagree have very good reasons and yet you openly revel in your insistence that there is not one reason. You disagree with marriage, LWW, and deny to those who defend marriage any sort of legitimacy — moral, ethical, reasoned, civic-minded, social-scientific, theological.

You thus obstinately attached to a political belief system, a creed, in which gay identity supersedes all. This is unreasoned zeal. It is the intolerant tenents and actions of bigotry. Pro-gay bigotry does not wear the double-halos that advocates, such as yourself, would have the rest of us believe — or have us act publicly as if we believed in your peculair creed.

SSMers are not so different, really, from the hockers of racialist identity politics, when it comes to the marriage issue and issures concerning children.

LWW said: “I’m willing to call any children born or immediately adopted by a couple matched.”

Again, what are you assuming by referring to “a couple”? And why the limit of two? What is your reasoning behind this particular arbitrary criterion?

And why study “lesbian parenting” if you are more concerned about outcomes for adopted children or for children of third party procreation? What is the reasoning for the lesbian criterion? Or for the gay criterion?

I am asking for the social scientific reasoning — not the excuses of identity politics.

There are studies of children of adoption and third party procreation — and such family structures fall short of the standard (mom-dad in an intact andn low-conflict marriage). The social scientific evidence strongly points to promotion of marriage as a sexual relationship between husband and wife as the optimum setting for children. Society benefits, as do the individuals involved, when low-conflict marriage is recognized as the societal solution for the intrinsic need for integrating the sexes and providing for responsible procreation. The evidence leads to that social policy rather than in the other direction.

What are the hypothetical merits (and demerits if you can even think of any) of equating the segregation of fatherhood and motherhood with the integration of fatherhood and motherhood?

The evidence on divorce and on out-of-wedlock childbearing is that more segregation results and that leads to social patholigies that are very difficult to correct. Indeed, it has been a downward spiral, as I think your own comments have occassionally admitted.

So why do you imagine that more of these same adverse factors is the way society should go? What is your hypothesis — that negating the unity of fatherhood and motherhood is superior to unity?

I love marriage. I love it so much I entered to one at 19 years of age and have stuck with it for 20 years this Sept. Fewer than 10% of “traditional” marriages incepted in the teenage years last 10 years. I did it for the right reasons, and I stick with it for the right reasons. It’s not always been easy, but it has been well worth the effort. I think my own example makes it clear how incredibly much I love marriage. I invested my whole life in the institution.

My beliefs are quite reasoned, and supported to the extent that society will allow it to be supported. When research is restricted, it’s hard for alternative views to gain credence. Until other couples are given the freedom we have, to show a fully-recognised marriage between two men or two women works…or doesn’t…in general when all other parameters are equal, I’m left unable to provide proof sufficient to your incredibly high bar.

My hypothesis, supported by scattered research and anecdote including my own, is that dedicated and committed same sex partners in an exclusive and life-long arrangement identical to marriage in all facets save gender are just as capable of raising children and supporting overall society as opposite sex relationships. When these unions are given all the legal and societal responsibilities and benefits given “traditional” pairings, we get the same output. Until the benefits of marriage are extended in at least some venues large enough such that we can test this hypothesis with a large enough “power” or sample size, you effectively silence an alternate view based on political strength only. You win by stacking the deck, not by scientific merit.

LWW said: “I think my own example makes it clear how incredibly much I love marriage. I invested my whole life in the institution.”

This will sound harsh to you, I am pretty sure.

Your example is irrelevant to this discussion because we are not discussing your personal details but rather we are discussing a social institution that is foundational to civil society. It is bigger than one person, one family, on generation, one country, one culture, or even one whole civilization.

The same goes for my own personal details, which I won’t enter as evidence in a public discussion of the societal significance of marriage. We could trade anecdotes and compete in a pissing contest to show how much love we have for our own viewpoint. But that’s not relevant to this discussion.

LWW said: “I’m left unable to provide proof sufficient to your incredibly high bar.”

It is not such a high bar, LWW. Besides, the advocates of your viewpoint (including yourself) are inconsistent and use one set of standards to assess inconclusive evidence to favor their political agenda switchingn to a different set of standards to assess the mountain of evidence that is available today.

Social science will not decide the marriage issue, anyway. But when it comes to discussing the evidence, we should be consistent rather than politically expedient as, I am afraid, the advocates of your viewpoint routinely demonstrate they MUST be in order to sustain their political optimism in their favor and their political pessimism against the viewpoint of marriage defenders.

Putting aside social science, there are questions of justice and morality and ethics that are highly significant. The marriage issue is not really the homosexuality issue, although at every turn the SSM advocates would rather make it about homosexuality than marriage itself.

LWW, as discussed here and elswhere on this blogsite, you choose to ignore evidence that is available on factors that are intrinsic to the one-sexed arrangement. That choice is how you’d stack the deck.

Same-sex can be one person alone, a twosome, or a moresome. It could even include some variations of polygamy and polyandry in which children are raised almost exclusively by mothers.

Most of the children in same-sex households are children of divorced or estranged mom-dad duos. Why exclude them from the larger research subset of children of divorced and estranged mom-dad duos? Likewise, with single-sexed third-party procreation. Please acknowledge that there are key factors in common — even with your assumption (still underlying and not justified by yourself on the surface) that the sexualized context of a lesbian arrangement is a key factor that sets that subset apart from the larger sets of children of divorced/estranged parents and third party procreation.

If it is not the sexualized aspect, then what are factor are your hoping to get hold of?

Note: the term, same-sex households, is a Census term which assumes that the adults in a household are same-sex sexual partners — lesbian, gay, homosexual. It is not my term.

Also note that I still await LWW’s explaination for her constrained use of the term “same-sex couples” as euphemism for homosexualized twosomes. Why sexualized? Why twosomes only? This is not a minor point.

2 is the magic number, but not just any 2. 1 of each.

Answered here so we can keep it all together as one conversation.

LWW, you did not actually answer at that other link.

Actually, I did as best I can tell.

I’m also dropping monitoring this blog, so you’ll have to bring any clarification over there.

At that link I’ve pointed out how you did not actually answer.