posted
I found the link to this on ornery.org. It is obviously written by those who are anti-homosexual, so is going to be biased. I do wonder if it is possible to find anything that isn't biased one way or the other on this topic.
It includes studies and surveys as evidence. The article makes some rather interesting points, bringing up some things I had never considered before, seeing as I know so little on this subject. A lot of those who are pro-gay marriage have been asking for solid evidence on why it would be destructive to society, as OSC claims. Go ahead and read the article and see what you think.
You are right that it does have some serious flaws and bias. The first half was a dispute on the reports that show homosexual parents are good parents. These were all done along the line of, "Not enough people were picked in the survey."
There criticism of the monkey research, that showed one variation of monkeys had traditional role reversal, hinted that not only did gay men make bad primary care givers, but any man would make a bad primary care giver. That sent up a red flag.
There was one statistic that showed children of gay couples were more likely to be recipients of incest than children of non-gay couples.
I took that as note worthy, then realized they did not follow up on it, nor did they say they were recipients of that abuse from one of the parents. Could it be that gay couples that adopt kids are adopting kids that need to get out of abusive households? They don't get into that.
Instead they go on to show things the parents do that are "dangerous" to the children.
The funny thing is, marriage would lessen the incidence of many of those things happening.
In a committed relationship, fooling around on the side, the spread of disease, etc all diminish. By not allowing gays to marry, we are hindering them from making those changes.
My favorite argument was that gays in commited relationships that were monogomous had more sex than those who were not, and that since sex spreads diseases like aids, that was wrong.
Um, since I've been married I've had a lot more sex than when I was single. For an organization that frowns on premarital sex, I would hope they realize that is a good thing. I would hate to be a true follower of their line of reasoning, "No sex before marriage, and after marriage, for the sake of the kids, even less."
The argument ends with a listing of extremists on both sides supposedy talking for everyone. That would be like me pointing to Osama bin Laden as a common source of Religious thinking.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, having the article be biased doesn't help in reaching rational conclusions. Thanks for bringing in some points for "the other side" to balance it out a bit.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, that article suffers from the exact problem it apparently wants to address: lack of evidence. As Dan points out, their claims can be easily shown to be spurious.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I do wonder if it is possible to find anything that isn't biased one way or the other on this topic.
It is virtually impossible to empirically prove bias in the social sciences to everyone's satisfaction. This is why, when people say 'let's see what happens', I believe that it isn't a call for objective study with the chance of change so much as wishful thinking. Nothing will ever be proved conclusively. In the end, people are going to approve of gay parenting based on their own bias. There will always be research to prove or disprove whichever stance a person wishes to take. In the end, I think what is permissible in society relies on the tolerance of society. Science has nothing to do with it. This is why I believe Orson puts so much anger in many of his essays that deal with social standards and uses no scientific 'proof' for what he says. Standards are based on emotions, not science. By putting a lot of emotion in his belief, he helps, hopes, to reinforce that social standard in a much more efficient and practical way than referring to social science articles ever could.
After skimming it, I would like to point out that it seems that a basic assumption of the Family Research Council is that all the negative characteristics of 'the gay lifestyle' or being gay that they cite are somehow an integral part of being gay. I would like to point out that such is probably not the case.
quote: CHILDREN NEED A MOM AND A DAD Attempts to redefine the very nature of the family ignore the accumulated wisdom of cultures and societies from time immemorial, which testifies that the best way for children to be raised is by a mother and father who are married to each other. The importance of the traditional family has been increasingly verified by research showing that children from married two-parent households do better academically, financially, emotionally, and behaviorally. They delay sex longer, have better health, and receive more parental support.[68]
The above fact is so, in large part, because of the culture(s) that many traditional marriages come from, because of the standard in those cultures. I can't see how just by virtue of having a man and woman as parents, children will automatically do better academically, financially, etc.
A lot has been made about the effects of normalizing the 'gay lifestyle' and how it will somehow destroy the standard of marriage and fidelity, etc. I suggest that this is ludicrous. Fidelity in marriage exists because it is useful for obvious reasons--stability, financial security, sharing of labor, physical and emotional health, etc. Not just because it is a standard. These reasons will not disappear in gay marriages. As the authors at FRC admit, the ideal of monogmous marriage has been around for a while and has existed across numerous cultures. Thus, I believe that the behavior of fidelity, the choice of it, is so widespread because it is logically the best choice for people. This is the source of the standard, not empty idealism. The standard is only truely eroded when that logic disappears. Fidelity does not depend on culture. But it is enhanced by it.
If there is a higher rate of promiscuity, etc, in gay marriages, I believe that these things will eventually cure themselves as gay people bring their relationships out of the darkness and into the spotlight of social censure and standards. It seems self evident(?) that the sex drive or will power of gay men isn't any greater than that of heterosexual men. By bringing gay couples into the mainstream, society will, I think, erode much of the club scene 'gay culture' that promotes promiscuity and there will also be concurrent positive effects on the mental and physical health of gay people.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, on the subject of promiscuity and homosexuality, I heard it suggested that it was no surprise that gay men in particular would be more promiscuous than a men in relationships with women because of the tendancey of women to desire monogamous commitment from men. The assumption is that gay men would be more tolerant of their partners having other partners as they themselves are more likely to desire the same. The idea here is that it is more in the nature of men to be promiscuous and more in the nature of women to desire commitment and fidelity in a one on one relationship. I have to wonder about the implications of this.
I guess what I am saying is that while there are certainly gay men out there who form stable, lasting relationships, especially if given the option of marriage, that more of these men would opt for "open marriages" (I know that many people have already said on this forum that they have no problem with open marriage) or would grow weary of commitment to one person even as their partner is feeling the same way. I think there is a reasonable argument for the good "civilizing" effects women have on men in relationships and cementing society and as the basis for rearing children.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
In terms of the whole promiscuity / civilising aspect of women - I'm not sure.
I know gay couples that are strictly monagamous (and as dedicated as a straight marriage would be). I also know straight couples that have broken up because the woman cheated. Often several times.
I know my partner doesn't need to be 'civilised'.* He isn't the one night stand kind of guy, nor is he a womaniser. Regardless of our relationship, he wouldn't play around. So if I have civilised him, it's more to do with bringing me tea in bed in the morning then stopping his promiscuity.
I realise these are all individual examples: but I don't think the generalisation holds.
--
Edit: * In terms of making him more civilised. Not in terms of I want him dragging me by my hair to his cave.
posted
Well, it's true, I am generalizing. There are plenty of individual examples that go totally against it.
Glad to know you've got a good man. I happen to believe I've got a pretty good one too. But he did have to be trained a bit. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*scratches self then contentedly lounges back in la-z-boy and inserts hand in front of pants*
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Thanks for bringing in some points for "the other side" to balance it out a bit.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
