Ruth Institute Blog

Weird. What does fast food advertising have to do with gay marriage? But to set the record straight, here’s one “lefty” that doesn’t believe in restricting anyone’s free speech rights (although heaven forbid we ask corporations to be socially responsible, huh?). No, I don’t want to ban McDonald’s or any other fast food chain, nor do I want to tell them what they can and can’t advertise. I am quite capable as a parent of monitoring what my children eat. I’m also capable of saying “no, you may not have McDonald’s for supper tonight,” or “no, that’s not healthy food and I’m not buying it for you.” Once again, you’ve stereotyped people and made assumptions.

As for the message we’re sending to kids with marriage equality–think about this one for a minute. Hmmm…maybe the message is that all people are deserving of equal treatment under the law, no one should be treated unfairly simply because of who they are, and families come in all different forms and it’s okay? But you keep living in fear of your Hobbesian jungle where men are wild savages and heterosexual male fathers are extinct. You keep blaming gay people for the failures of straight men. Whatever makes you feel better. Too bad you just can’t accept people for who they are and stop trying to make everyone fit into your idealized box.

You are trying the equate single-parent families with two-parent same sex families without any data, and then extend that to comparisons with two-parent hetero families. You can’t. Compare two-parent same-sex and two-parent hetero familes, controlling for factors such as finances, location, and previous divorce. When equivalent familes are compared head-to-head, the data has shown that same-sex headed families hold their own quite nicely. My own “N of 1″ certainly bears that out.

There seems to be an undercurrent to Arlemegne’s perspective that there is this huge swell of people just waiting to become gay if given the chance and example. Hogwash. Most people prefer the opposite sex. Duh. I’m certainly not deluded enough to deny the obvious reasons for that. Truth be told, I generally prefer guys over girls myself despite my marital situation. That said, some people don’t…and some have exceptional circumstances like mine. We aren’t sold on the idea by some advertising campaign, we aren’t persuaded by some example. We’re born that way. Sorry, but that’s just as “duh” as why most people are heterosexual. No one would put up with the second-class citizenship and marginalization if it wasn’t part of our being, the way God created us. And Lord knows my first question when I get past shaking hands with St Peter and give Jesus a big hug will be, “Okay, can you let me in on the joke now?”.

Heidi, the point is that the volume and persistent message becomes the default understanding. Arlemagne used fast food to compare. You obviously got the comparison and yet you pretend to not understand Arlemagne’s point about messages.

When a dominanting message influences social behavior, as per the fast food comparison, it can be countered but only in an ad hoc way, as your own comment illustrated. What you are underestimating is the diminished influence of parents who must respond to the dominating message. This is not so weird. Unlike your idealization of ‘just say no’. Odd that you idealized that counter-culture message although I bet you were (are) hostile to the ‘just say no’ message on other social and cultural matters. Weird?

Heidi said: “maybe the message is that all people are deserving of equal treatment under the law, no one should be treated unfairly simply because of who they are, and families come in all different forms and it’s okay?”

Who is trying to put people into idealized boxes now? Heh.

There is equal treatment, now, under the man-woman basis of marriage law. You may opt out of marriage and choose something else. And that is a liberty exercised, not a right denied.

Your comments show that you think of marriage as a sexualized type of relatonship. So you equate it with the same-sex sexualized type of arrangement. But there is no legal requirement for same-sex sexualization anyplace where an all-male or an all-female scenario may go for a license for same-sex union. So that can’t be the definitive feature of the arrangement you have in mind, afterall.

Minus that, on what principled basis would you deny equal treatment of related people or polygamous and polyandrist people? You can’t be so concerned about sexual orientation in the law if you don’t propose a sexual orientation requirement. Nonsexual arrangements merit equal treatment to what you keep demanding.

Society says, no, but you disagree with the message. I doubt you have a principled basis to deny the same thing to related people, polygamists, and polyandrists. Even single people. Equal treatment is not your real message.

If you would not discriminate against such people, then, you ought to say so now before going any further in your comments. Explain if you really mean what you just said about “no one should be treated unfairly simply because of who they are, and families come in all different forms and it’s okay”.

A pair of basic questions: 1) do you support the special status of marriage in our laws and policies?; 2) on what basis is such a special status merited?

LWW said: “Compare two-parent same-sex and two-parent hetero familes, controlling for factors such as finances, location, and previous divorce. When equivalent familes are compared head-to-head, the data has shown that same-sex headed families hold their own quite nicely.”

Why do you use the euphemism, ‘same-sex’, when you mean homosexual? Especial when you then use the term, ‘hetero’ in the same breath? There are same-sex scenarios that are not sexualized — that are not homosexual. Presumably, you did not mean to include those even though there are millions more families of that nonsexualized kind than the homosexualized kind.

And, if you did mean to emphasize the same-sex sexualized context for parenting, then, you are long overdue to explain the significance of the sexualization in terms of the child-adult relationship and outcomes for children.

There are no “head-to-head” studies that merit your use of the social scientific term, “shown”. If you have new original research that you think merits that strong language, please produce it here. Or you could restate with more accurate language.

Single parenting scenarios have lots in common with the structure of the one-sexed parenting scenario that is sexualized. The lack of the other sex, for one obvious thing, is not minor. In other words, this is not just about the number two, as you hoped.

Also, most of the children residing in same-sex households (a Census term that assumes the adults are in a homsexual relationship) are children of divorced or estranged mom-dads (typically married parents). Also, periods of single-parenthood are very common among the adults in such households.

The same holds for users of third party procreation services. The structure counts more than sexual orientation.

So when you read about these comparisons you really should put on your social scientist hat and stop reading “lesbian” and read structure. Two women raising children could be a mom and grandmom, or two sisters, or two friends (homosexual or not) in a nonsexualized household. If you really think that the sexualization of a lesbian household makes all the difference to outcomes for children, say so and provide your evidence that “shows” what you’d assert.

In terms of mom-dad scenarios, we can put our finger on the sexualized relationship that beget the children. We can point to the high significance of low-conflict and intact marriages in outcomes for children. We can point to the empirical evidence that has accumulated during the past 4 decades — a mountain compared to your mole hill, LWW. We can also point to successful civilizations where marital status is a special status — across the anthropological andhistorical record — compared with the lack of any such examples for “gay marriage” as treated as the full equivalentn of marriage.

Now, if you insist that society dismiss the mountain and favor the mole hill as far more convincing, sayso and please don’t pretend to be basing your opinion on social science. You can continue to pretend, of course, but don’t expect to be taken seriously on that score.

In terms of sexual orientation, the man-woman marriage law does not classify on that basis. On the face of it, your closing “duh” remarks are foolish. I expect that A can speak to that, if he wishes, but I don’t think you’ve been reading and comprehending very well.

@Chairm: I’ll let redundant conversations in other blags take their course. I don’t have the luxury of saying the same thing on different channels.

My last “duh” had nothing to do with marriage. It had to do with orientation, and what I must hold as fact since I live in my own head that such perceptions as sexual orientation or gender identity are innate. I go on to explain why I perceive no one would go through what those unfortunates who go against the grain have to put up with from the majority who seem to want to beat us into being good adherents of conventional wisdom. “If it’s good enough for me, it’s by God good enough for YOU.” Um, not necessarily…

And as far as mountains and mole hills, once again I say clearly I am not suggesting we replace opposite-sex marriage with same-sex marriage. I am not proclaiming one is superior over the other. I am just advocating that there is no established reason, other than “we’ve always done it this way”, to deny same-sex couples the same rights and responsibilities. At the very least, let us let some states try it out and see how it goes under comparable circumstances. Then maybe we can grow that mole hill a bit, rather than deride it for it’s size when no effort has been applied to it on par with the legions building the mountain.

LLW, please explain what your first sentence means. Thanks.

—-

You ‘live in your own head’, you explained. So you were not speaking of objective fact.

Instead, you explained, you were speaking of your entirely subjective feelings. We can agree that has nothing to do with marriage law. Nor does it change the foolishness of the duh comments given what A actually wrote.

—-

My comment regarding mountains and molehills was on the topic of the original blogpost at the top of the discussion. I spoke to your remark about research.

As for reasons “to deny same-sex couples the same rights and responsiblities”, you have not addressed the question I asked about your use of the euphemism, same-sex couples, even as you continue to rely upon your emphasis on sexual orientation. There are parenting scenarios that are same-sexed but not homosexual, lesbian, gay or whatever other subset your comments continuously emphasized. The same goes for mutually supportive relationships and arrangements that are either childless or are raising children.

SSM advocates have failed to establish reasons to accord a special status for homosexual behavior, or homosexual sexual attrractions. Marital status is a special status; and it is so for special reason. You have repeatedly argued agains the special reason for special status even as you demand special status for the type of arrangement you advocate.

If you have a special reason, one which would exclude the far more numerous arrangements that are not defined by homosexuality, then please put it forth.

As for your remarks about making a mountain out of a molehill, think you concede far more than you imagined when you wrote that. Besides, the molehill you chose to describe is not the molehill I referred to in my previous comment so you evaded that topic. Please respond to what I had actually written if you are sincerely here to discuss these things forthrightly.

@Chairm: First off, I have answered a lot of these questions on other blogs here. That was the reference of my first sentance. I hate carrying on the same conversation all over the place. For example, a lot of these questions were answered here

There is no way I can “objectively” prove sexual orientation or gender identity. It is innate to who we are, and there is no “test” for it. All I can point to is the sacrifice those of us who have alternate perspectives on those aspects of human nature put up with to live as we are made. You just have to accept what we say we feel, because when it comes to such perspectives or preferences, what we feel IS our reality. No different from how you just “know” your own perception. Call my “duh” foolish, but that’s where I am left in my frustration with others who foolishly think they know my head better than I do. We can both be foolish.

A lot of the latter 2/3 of your post I did answer elsewhere, but here goes. On the original topic, which I have spoken to, I will agree there is a possibility same sex marriage (SSM) could have some overall impact to fatherhood in general. I will just state categorically any data regarding mother-only families cannot be assumed to compare to SSM couples. There is no data I know of to support any A=B then B=C connection, so single-mother data is entirely irrelevant to the discussion unless some is established. We’re then left with our dueling hypotheses. I say it’s extremely likely no overall impact on fatherhood overall by female SSM, you say there is a likelihood. Okay, let’s agree to do research. But in order to do so, there have to be at least some places where SSM couples are allowed all the freedoms and priviledges of opposite-sex marriage (OSM) couples, or the data is incomparable. I know personally the importance of such freedoms and protections, and anecdote is a scientifically valid basis for formulating initial research questions and criteria. Anecdote just cannot be applied more broadly than the anecdote circumstance until such data is performed- either way.

I am arguing for special status for the same reasons heterosexual, dedicated couples want and enjoy such. Same sex couples want to join together and raise kids. Same sex couples want to grow old together with the security enjoyed by otherwise identical heterosexual couples. I have, and other want, the same exact thing heterosexual couples have for their relationships, both rights AND responsibilities. Equal responsibilities, equal protections. If my own and other anecdotes don’t provide enough evidence to allow, then let’s gather the evidence. But you deny us even that if you won’t allow us the rights so that we can prove ourselves in numbers you would find convincing.

SSM advocates have failed to establish reasons to accord a special status for homosexual behavior, or homosexual sexual attrractions. Marital status is a special status; and it is so for special reason. You have repeatedly argued agains the special reason for special status even as you demand special status for the type of arrangement you advocate. If you have a special reason, one which would exclude the far more numerous arrangements that are not defined by homosexuality, then please put it forth.

I’m not sure I understand what you want with the above. We only want the special status afforded other pairs of human beings who choose to dedicate their lives to each other in exclusive relationships for the purpose, among others, of chidrearing. We do not ask anything beyond that, and we do not ask for any exceptions from the responsibilites that come with it.

As far as the mountain/mole-hill, I’ve answered your questions to the best of my understanding of them. You point to a mountain of data and deride my mole-hill, and then deny me the opportunity to create the data you then require to prove my argument. I’m caught in a catch 22 with the default that you win. Not very sportsmanlike of you.

@Chairm: Another extensive post on related topics I made in response to you can be found Here.

And just to reassure everyone that I DO have a life, I’m at work supporting a system downtime and have entered a lull period. I promise I will generally NOT be posting here in the middle of the night!

LWW said: “just have to accept what we say we feel, because when it comes to such perspectives or preferences, what we feel IS our reality.”

Do you just have to accept what others feel — especially when it contradicts your opinion on these matters — such as the children of divorce or the children of third party procreation? Do their feelings weight as heavily as your own subjective assessments of your internal experiences?

One can readily accept what someone says she feels, on face value, while again pointing out that the man-woman criterion of marriage law does not use such criteria. Neither self-perceived nor externally-perceived sexual orientation constitutes a test for eligiblity.

Likewise, self-assigned or socially-assigned membership in an identity group.

LWW said: “I will just state categorically any data regarding mother-only families cannot be assumed to compare to SSM couples.”

Both are one-sexed scenarios. On that basis the lack of father presence is a valid factor for comparisons.

Now you’ve referred to “SSM couples”, which was not the subset you referred to previously. If you are proposing a moving target, then, the lack of data will persist, LWW.

Meanwhile we have loads of social scientific evidence and analysis on fatherless children, children of divorced fathers, children of absent unwed fathers, and so forth. There is no gaping lack of data on fatherlessness. And we are accumulating evidence on children of third party procreation procedures. Taken together, these cover the scenarios of all same-sex parenting arrangements, do they not?

These are A = A. But if you think lesbianism makes all the difference, then, you need to state the hypothesis such that the previously noted scenarios are excluded entirely. If you cannot do that, then, your categorical statements are not worth much in the social scientific arena. Sure, such statements might carry political weight, but nothing more. Your political opinion may serve as your basis for feeling entitled to over-ride the available social science evidence. In which case, your use of terms like, shown, are deliberately misleading.

I’d hope not. So I await your hypothesis — or someone else’s hypothsis that has convinced your of your own certitude on this matter.

LWW said: “, there have to be at least some places where SSM couples are allowed all the freedoms and priviledges of opposite-sex marriage (OSM) couples, or the data is incomparable.”

Tell me this, LWW, in all seriousness. Are you prepared to let researchers study Canada and Scandinavia for, say, a couple of generations, for the purpose of accumulating the data you say is needed? If not, then, what do you really mean by what you said?

If we would learn from what occured with no-fault divorce, we would not be in such a rush to experiment as widely as the SSM advocates insist we must. Even one state is too much, in my view, given the known costs of fatherlessness, increased sex-segregation, and increased lack of responsible procreation in our society already. Human being should not be subjected to such experiments. These other places have made that choice — one way or the other — and they have become the guinea pigs. Go with that, why not?

LWW said: “I am arguing for special status for the same reasons heterosexual, dedicated couples want and enjoy such.”

The special reason for special status is societal, not private, LWW. You are confusing 1) personal motivations for attaining this status with 2) societal reasons for treating the social institution as special.

No one-sexed arrangement, sexualized or not, can deliver the benefits of sex integration and responsible procreation. It is not a question of how heroically romantic you might paint personal motivations. The conjugal relationship is not one-sexed; and whatever the merits, and demerits, of other types of relationship or arrangements, they lack the special reason for the special status that is accorded the social institution of marriage.

One gains marital status by entering the social institution, not by neutralizing its core meaning, LWW. If you choose to form a sex-segregative relationship, you choose to exercise a liberty that exists outside of marriage.

LWW, upfront, are you advocating that society reward homosexual sexual behavior or homosexual sexual attraction?

If not, then, why your emphasis on sexual orientation and identity group? What would distinguish SSM from nonsexualized one-sexed arrangements? A test for sexual orientation or identity?

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

I see that you’d change the meaning of marriage to that of an asexual type of arrangement. That is not the same thing as saying that conjugal relations is optional for this or that married couple, you know.

well, if you really want to be healthy, i believe that veggan foods are the best `~.