Civil Homosexual Marriage

[edwest2]

Good point:

onenewsnow.com/culture/2014/10/27/frc-fact-not-opinion-hetero-parents-better-for-kids-than-same-sex-parents

Ed

 

[DrTaffy]

Nonsense.

Truth. Study after study have shown that gay parents do very well at raising kids. There would be a stronger case for arguing that highly religious parents are bad for the children.

Even the Allen study, one credible article that at least tries to support your view, has the honesty to start with the quote:

Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by
heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research
supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of
developmental psychology.
[Justice Vaughn Walker, section 70, Perry v. Schwarzenegger]

…not to mention listing 50 odd studies supporting the assertion I made.

Controlled sample data is very hard to come by because gay parents have been exceedingly rare until recently.

So your best ‘evidence’ is to dismiss all the existing evidence? The best you can do is to say that you have no evidence to support your assertion and that you will ignore all our evidence? :ehh:

Any honest sociologist will tell you that THE biggest predictor of a kid growing up healthy, happy, adjusted and educated is growing up in a home with his mom and dad there.

No, any honest sociologist will tell you this:

This article includes our assessment of the literature, focusing on those studies, reviews and books published within the past decade. We conclude that there is a clear consensus in the social science literature indicating that American children living within same-sex parent households fare just, as well as those children residing within different-sex parent households over a wide array of well-being measures: academic performance, cognitive development, social development, psychological health, early sexual activity, and substance abuse.

Child Well-Being in Same-Sex Parent Families: Review of Research Prepared for American Sociological Association Amicus Brief
Wendy D. Manning, Marshal Neal Fettro, Esther Lamidi

 

[_Abyssinia]

Truth. Study after study have shown that gay parents do very well at raising kids. There would be a stronger case for arguing that highly religious parents are bad for the children.

Even the Allen study, one credible article that at least tries to support your view, has the honesty to start with the quote:

…not to mention listing 50 odd studies supporting the assertion I made.

So your best ‘evidence’ is to dismiss all the existing evidence? The best you can do is to say that you have no evidence to support your assertion and that you will ignore all our evidence? :ehh:

No, any honest sociologist will tell you this:

Child Well-Being in Same-Sex Parent Families: Review of Research Prepared for American Sociological Association Amicus Brief
Wendy D. Manning, Marshal Neal Fettro, Esther Lamidi

American Psychological Associated cited 59 studies in a 2005 brief. Researcher Loren Marks’ remarks on this:

[N]ot one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children. The available data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim either way. Such a statement would not be grounded in science. To make a generalizable claim, representative, large-sample studies are needed—many of them.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580

Are there studies since 2005 which would meet the above that is cited from Loren Marks? Studies that look at the outcomes for children raised by homosexual parents that that includes a large random, representative sample of people, and can not be accused of perhaps being prone to social desirability bias because the parents self-report on the children so no self reporting from parents? I know there is some criticism of Mark Regnerus, but he questions the information kids can provide in these studies and the issue of the ‘Hawthorne effect’ and ‘social desirability bias.’

 

[DrTaffy]

Good point:

onenewsnow.com/culture/2014/10/27/frc-fact-not-opinion-hetero-parents-better-for-kids-than-same-sex-parents

Not really. The quote from Child Trends, for example, is a rather tired old example of quote mining. Nicely dismantled here:

The Iona institute claims that Child Trends’ research has found that two biological parents are better for children than same-sex parents. However, a quick look at the actual research paper reveals that none of this is, in fact, true. The research conducted by Child Trends encompassed several family structures: single parents, cohabitating parents, stepparents, and two biological married parents. The research did not include same-sex parents. The paper is a comparative study between the above stated parenting structures, and its finding are confined to those structures. The paper uses the terms “two”, “biological”, and “married” contrastively: two as opposed to single parents, biological as opposed to stepparents, and married as opposed to a cohabiting couple. To take these findings and apply them to any other family structure which the research did not encapsulate is blatantly dishonest.

The Institute for American Values was hardly nonpartisan, although I see that the president, at least, has changed his mind on gay marriage.

And so on. The whole thing is exactly what one would expect from the FRC.

 

[DrTaffy]

American Psychological Associated cited 59 studies in a 2005 brief.

That was actually the 2014 brief I was citing, although since I seem to have failed to cut-and-paste the full citation I can hardly blame you for not knowing that!

Full citation (paywall alert):
Child Well-Being in Same-Sex Parent Families: Review of Research Prepared for American Sociological Association Amicus Brief
Wendy D. Manning, Marshal Neal Fettro, Esther Lamidi Population Research and Policy Review
August 2014, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 485-502

So plenty of new citations there.

In any case if your argument is that there are no ‘good’ studies of same sex parenting, then you are admitting that you have no evidence for the assertion that gay parents are any worse than heterosexual ones. And even to get that far you have to dismiss the whole of scientific consensus. Just to get to the ‘argument’ that you have no evidence.

Researcher Loren Marks’ remarks on this:
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580

…]

I know there is some criticism of Mark Regnerus, but he questions the information kids can provide in these studies and the issue of the ‘Hawthorne effect’ and ‘social desirability bias.’

There is ‘some criticism’ of both of the experts you cite - who, apart from anything else were clearly working together. As shown by the fact that while Marks and Regnerus published the above cited article “Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes…” and the infamous Regnerus article simultaneously in the same journal (which could happen by chance, admittedly) Marks actually cites Regnerus’ article in his. In other words, he knew all about it before it was published.

Which is not wrong, per se, but is very suspicious. Researchers are not supposed to coordinate articles for political effect.

Further, from this link:

In 2010 Loren Marks was expected to testify on behalf of the defendants in the Proposition 8 court case, then known as Perry v Schwarzenegger. He was called to testify that the two-biological-parent family structure was the most beneficial to children, however, he was dropped after making some shocking admissions in cross examination.

• He admitted to not actually reading all the research he cited; in fact, he had read “justportions of it”.

• He admitted cherrypicking only data that were relevant to his argument.

• He admitted that his religious convictions may have influenced him when he conducted the study.

• He admitted that his belief that the ideal family structure is marriage between a man and a woman predates his work as a social scientist and does not stem from his research.

•  He admitted the reports he used didn’t define “biological” in the genetic sense: it also encompassed adoptive parents. He was forced to remove the word “biological” in the report he prepared.

• He admitted he never actually researched any same-sex couples.

Marks’ primary research is in faith and the family and he has no experience nor expertise in child development. Marks subsequently wrote another paper where he calls into the question the validity of research which show similar outcomes for children in either parenting structure. He claims that the sample sizes are too small to arrive at any adequate conclusions.

Regnerus, of course, is also the guy who claimed that same sex marriage will cause straight men to demand anal sex from their girlfriends. So no obsession there!

 

[_Abyssinia]

That was actually the 2014 brief I was citing, although since I seem to have failed to cut-and-paste the full citation I can hardly blame you for not knowing that!

Full citation (paywall alert):
Child Well-Being in Same-Sex Parent Families: Review of Research Prepared for American Sociological Association Amicus Brief
Wendy D. Manning, Marshal Neal Fettro, Esther Lamidi Population Research and Policy Review
August 2014, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 485-502

So plenty of new citations there.

The article you linked cites studies, and there are lots of studies on outcomes for children raised by homosexual parents, and reading some of the references, multiple studies appear to ask the children and/or parents, and that may be prone to social desirability bias, and these are some examples of the studies are being cited in the article you linked. You haven’t really answered my question specifically and pointed out a specific study or studies, you cited something which cites other studies and I can not at this time go through every study in that citation and see whether it meets certain standards and I am not really blaming you for not providing a link to a specific study that meets the certain standards, because you just probably don’t know of one, but if the studies do not exist in number, there will be criticism.

In any case if your argument is that there are no ‘good’ studies of same sex parenting, then you are admitting that you have no evidence for the assertion that gay parents are any worse than heterosexual ones. And even to get that far you have to dismiss the whole of scientific consensus. Just to get to the ‘argument’ that you have no evidence.

I think that children ideally need to be brought up by the people that are their biological relatives, their mother and and their father. Is biological attachment an unimportant matter? I am not sure of the percentage, but I imagine that a lot of children that are raised by homosexual parents do not know at least one of their parents, their mother or their father, or perhaps both. In some cases, such as when adoption happens, the children may not find out anyway, regardless of whether those who are raising them are homosexual or heterosexual, but surrogacy is something that homosexuals have turned to as a path to bring a child or children into the world to raise, and not only is this ethically concerning, but even if the child or children has knowledge of who are they biological related too, they may never meet them or know what is like to be raised in a home with their biological parents.

…]

There is ‘some criticism’ of both of the experts you cite - who, apart from anything else were clearly working together. As shown by the fact that while Marks and Regnerus published the above cited article “Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes…” and the infamous Regnerus article simultaneously in the same journal (which could happen by chance, admittedly) Marks actually cites Regnerus’ article in his. In other words, he knew all about it before it was published.

Which is not wrong, per se, but is very suspicious. Researchers are not supposed to coordinate articles for political effect.

Further, from this link:

Regnerus, of course, is also the guy who claimed that same sex marriage will cause straight men to demand anal sex from their girlfriends. So no obsession there!

Why are multiple studies recruiting participants, not using representative samples, small samples etc. This is not the 1980s, or even 1990s, there are a lot more children raised by homosexual parents now. I am not 100% sure, but based on what I have read it appears that representative samples cost more money, so there may be a monetary reason why some of these people who are carrying out these studies may not be using representative samples, but why don’t you read online for yourself the criticism of not using representative samples, and I am not regarding just specific to studies on outcomes for children.

 

[DrTaffy]

I am editing (eliding) Abyssinia’s post quite a bit. But as the original is right above and the quotes are just there to establish the context of what I am responding to, I think that is reasonable. Any apparent change of meaning is unintentional and pre-emptively apologised for.

The article you linked cites studies, and there are lots of studies …] You haven’t really answered my question specifically and pointed out a specific study or studies, you cited something which cites other studies

Well, now. On the one hand you complain that we don’t use large enough data sets, now you are complaining that I am giving you too much data?

In any case, we do not appear to be on the same page here. To my mind you are the ones making the assertion that same sex parenting is harmful to society, yet when challenged all you have is :

I think that children ideally need to be brought up by the people that are their biological relatives, their mother and and their father. Is biological attachment an unimportant matter? I am not sure of the percentage, but I imagine that a lot of children that are raised by homosexual parents do not know at least one of their parents, their mother or their father, or perhaps both.

… oh yes, and a quote from a guy with no expertise in the subject, and who admits that he only read ‘portions of’ the research, cherry picked the bits that supported his view and that his conclusions were predetermined by his religious beliefs?

To the very very limited extent that homosexuals need prove that they are not all paedophiles in order to be allowed to marry, they have done so. It is your assertion that they are bad or harmful parents, and you have yet to provide any reasonable proof of this deeply insulting assertion.

I can not at this time go through every study in that citation and see whether it meets certain standards

But you expect me to do so for you??

I have shown that the current professional consensus is that same sex couples are at least as good at parenting as heterosexuals. If you want to argue the opposite the burden of proof is on you.

At the very least these studies show that there are a large number of same sex couples who are doing a very good job of raising kids. So that raises a moral imperative for you to justify denying them legal recognition.

In some cases, such as when adoption happens, the children may not find out anyway, regardless of whether those who are raising them are homosexual or heterosexual, but surrogacy is something that homosexuals have turned to as a path to bring a child or children into the world to raise, and not only is this ethically concerning, but even if the child or children has knowledge of who are they biological related too, they may never meet them or know what is like to be raised in a home with their biological parents.

If ‘knowing both their parents’ is the issue, campaign for that and you will have my full support. While I understand the reasons behind the current legal situation in most of the western world, which incentivises sterile couples to use anonymous donors rather than known and loved friends, I think the resulting harm far outweighs the benefit to society.

But these kids (and not just those resulting from surrogacy or sperm donors) exist and we all, including you, must deal with that. Will you look those kids in the eye and tell them that it would be better for everyone if they had never existed?

If not, you must face the fact of their existence, and I frankly doubt that you can argue that they will benefit from being raised by a couple whom you have prevented from being married.

I am not 100% sure, but based on what I have read it appears that representative samples cost more money,

Of course they do. Since you are the ones making a claim needing support, you start thinking how you would produce a large, random non-self-selecting sample of same sex parents and cost it out.

So far your best attempt is an argument from ‘I imagine that…’:nope:

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Indeed given the various paedophile priest scandals, the high incidence of religious people in prison, the cases of religious parents either making their children homeless or driving them to suicide attempts when they learn they are gay/bi/trans and so on, I could make a stronger case for highly religious people being unfit parents.

Dangerous ground Dr. Every priest involved in the child molesting scandal admitted to being homosexual and some were very openly homosexual. That presents a close relationship between pedophilia and homosexuality.

As to suicide **attempts ** among children whose parents disagree with their “choices” on religious grounds…that should be compared to the suicide rate of homosexuals in general.

 

[SMGS127]

Dangerous ground Dr. Every priest involved in the child molesting scandal admitted to being homosexual and some were very openly homosexual.

This is completely blatantly false, and it flies in the face of the fact that the Church’s own report on the subject, the John Jay Report, explicitly states that there was no correlation between homosexuals and abuse in the Church.

 

[DrTaffy]

This is completely blatantly false, and it flies in the face of the fact that the Church’s own report on the subject, the John Jay Report, explicitly states that there was no correlation between homosexuals and abuse in the Church.

This.

The Jay report did find, ironically, that one group with a positive correlation to child abuse were those with strong anti-homosexual views.

 

[kozlosap]

This.

The Jay report did find, ironically, that one group with a positive correlation to child abuse were those with strong anti-homosexual views.

 

[CarolNoel]

You’re missing the point. The state gives special treatment to married couples because marriage, by it’s nature, tends towards not only creating kids, but providing them the environment they need to thrive. Hetero couples CAN decide to never have children, but it generally requires them to make special efforts to defeat the nature of the relationship (contraception, sterilization, abortion, etc.). Gay couples CAN acquire kids, but that too requires them to first defeat the nature of their relationship.

We live in a society that no longer believes in the value of innate nature and worships the idol of will, but that’s a lie. In fact, it’s the original sin! (Choosing will over teleological nature).

By your argument, hetero, single friends who decide to invest in a property together had better get married, eh? Absurd. Marriage is more than simply a shared life. It is a literally life-giving relationship by it’s nature that is different than other sorts of relationships.

Great post:thumbsup:

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Besides all the sociological reasons given by others, the Church cannot condone two people living in a state of mortal sin.

The Church cannot condone gay marriage for the same reasons it cannot condone “trial marriage,” divorce and remarriage without annulment, masturbation, fornication, and/or any other sexual sin.

We are called to love the sinner, but hate the sin. Accepting civil same sex marriage is like accepting unmarried sex. The Church cannot condone sin, period.

I hope this helps.

God Bless

But the church is not being asked to condone anything. To my knowledge, the church (or Catholics) is not looking to have civil divorce restricted like in the days of old. Do you think that, if the circumstances permitted, we might see the church campaigning for an end to divorce, since it’s sinful from a Catholic standpoint?

 

[Havard]

But the church is not being asked to condone anything. To my knowledge, the church (or Catholics) is not looking to have civil divorce restricted like in the days of old. Do you think that, if the circumstances permitted, we might see the church campaigning for an end to divorce, since it’s sinful from a Catholic standpoint?

Regarding civil divorce… most of our canon law tribunals require proof of civil divorce before hearing annulment petitions, so I think you’ve misinterpreted some teaching. The Church believes the sacrament of marriage cannot be undone, which is why only widows/widowers may marry more than once.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

This is completely blatantly false, and it flies in the face of the fact that the Church’s own report on the subject, the John Jay Report, explicitly states that there was no correlation between homosexuals and abuse in the Church.

The John Jay report was a complete white-wash. It was commissioned by the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops and produced by researchers from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. A secular organization

There are many critics including Catholic League President Bill Donohue who continues to claim the crisis was essentially a “gay problem,” while victims’ advocates have pronounced the study unreliable because the bishops self-reported much of the data. Some have even accused John Jay of allowing those who funded the research—including the USCCB—to dictate its results.

Such critics allege that John Jay cooked the data in order to minimize the bishops’ role in the scandal, or, worse, in order to minimize the suffering of victims.

What is important to note is that one year after the John Day report was released by the USCCB, the Vatican issued an instruction through the CONGREGATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION

Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations
with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies
in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

The Vatican did not fall for the John Day Report…

"…this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, (homosexuals) cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”.

“Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.”

In other words…no more homosexuals to be ordained.

 

[JimG]

John Jay Study Undermined by it’s Own Data

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Regarding civil divorce… most of our canon law tribunals require proof of civil divorce before hearing annulment petitions, so I think you’ve misinterpreted some teaching. The Church believes the sacrament of marriage cannot be undone, which is why only widows/widowers may marry more than once.

Which is all just fine.

But the argument some are making is that Catholics should fight civil recognition of gay marriage, since it’s sinful from the Catholic perspective. I ask, why not the same for civil divorce?

 

[dmar198]

Which is all just fine.

But the argument some are making is that Catholics should fight civil recognition of gay marriage, since it’s sinful from the Catholic perspective. I ask, why not the same for civil divorce?

I think Catholics should and do fight against divorce laws. I think we fought hard to block modern divorce laws that allow a marriage to be “legally” dissolved, and I don’t think the fight has been completely given up. There still are organizations dedicated to restoring a culture where dissolution of marriage is illegal, and when new countries introduce divorce legislation, you still find Catholics fighting to stop them. If something is really immoral, the State shouldn’t do it or help others do it.

 

[Havard]

Which is all just fine.

But the argument some are making is that Catholics should fight civil recognition of gay marriage, since it’s sinful from the Catholic perspective. I ask, why not the same for civil divorce?

I don’t know what others are saying, but the argument of the Church is not “gay marriage is sinful, so gay marriage should not be recognized.” Most personal relationships are not recognized in any way by the state, sinful or otherwise. The argument is that traditional marriage is the fundamental building block of human society, and therefore this particularly special relationship needs to be promoted by the state.

 

[dmar198]

I don’t know what others are saying, but the argument of the Church is not “gay marriage is sinful, so gay marriage should not be recognized.”

I think that is a fine argument, and it seems to be basically what the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith explained in its document “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons.”

In Section 6 of that document, we find this summary: Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person. Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good. source It seems to me that this paragraph is very similar to the simple argument you rejected. The argument you rejected can be put into syllogistic logic this way: (1) the State should not support anything immoral, (2) homosexual unions are immoral, (3) therefore the State should not support homosexual unions.

The CDF document seems to support this syllogism. For premise 1, the CDF document says, “[Every] law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law,” which to me seems similar to premise 1: “the State should not support anything immoral.” For premise 2, the CDF document says, “Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason,” which to me seems similar to premise 2: “homosexual unions are immoral.” For the conclusion, the CDF document says, “the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty,” which to me seems similar to the conclusion, “therefore the State should not support homosexual unions.”

Therefore, I think the CDF does recognize and defend the argument that you said the Church doesn’t use.

Most personal relationships are not recognized in any way by the state, sinful or otherwise.

That seems true.

The argument is that traditional marriage is the fundamental building block of human society, and therefore this particularly special relationship needs to be promoted by the state.

That’s true too, and I think that argument appears in several Church documents as well. But there is room for more than one objection to homosexual unions.