Beyond same sex marriage

David, we started out with your claim of 2 to 8 million children in homosexual households.  I doubted your numbers.  I went to a homosexual friendly website to find they reported much lower numbers and now you come back with the ever credible Boston Globe estimate at 10 million and as if that’s not enough we’ll throw in the ACLU numbers at up to 14 million.  I have the impression that if some liberal site somewhere pulled a number like 20 or 50 million out of the air that would be used as well.  How am I to find credibility in ANY of the numbers you have used?  Once again I think you are spouting propaganda.

In his reply to my post Jim mentioned he got numbers from the Princeton site; http://www.futureofchildren.org/. I would recommend people to the same site, especially to this link; http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2827/information_show.htm?doc_id=290849

At this site they mention 4 conclusions from the study of children of same sex parents. I will list the beginning of each of the four conclusions for the sake of brevity.

“First, lesbian mothers, and gay fathers (about whom less is known), are much like other parents. Where differences are found, they sometimes favor same-sex parents.”

“Second, there is no evidence that children of lesbian and gay parents are confused about their gender identity, either in childhood or adulthood, or that they are more likely to be homosexual.”

“Third, in general, children raised in same-sex environments show no differences in cognitive abilities, behavior, general emotional development, or such specific areas of emotional development as self-esteem, depression, or anxiety. In the few cases where differences in emotional development are found, they tend to favor children raised in lesbian families.”

“Finally, many gay and lesbian parents worry about their children being teased, and children often expend emotional energy hiding or otherwise controlling information about their parents, mainly to avoid ridicule. The evidence is mixed, however, on whether the children have heightened difficulty with peers, with more studies finding no particular problems.”

Jim said: “David it was not I who made the claim “There is plenty of information out there …”.  You actually make my point in that I also don’t think those studies exist.  However, there are studies which clearly show that children are best served when raised by their mother and father.”

The American Psychological Association says kids do just as well in same sex households. Here are a list of studies that show the same thing; (Patterson, 2004), (Gershon et al., 1999), (Tasker & Golombok, 1997), (Wainright et al., 2004) and (Gartrell et al., 1996, 1999, 2000). I went to The Future of Children site you mentioned and found this quote from the American Psychological Association; “There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation. . . . On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children.” Now, Jim, which studies were you talking about?

As to the number of children being raised by gay parents I found varying numbers. An official census won’t be accurate because gay parents in much of America are terrified that there children will be taken away from them. Especially 8 or 9 years ago. Recently, gay parents have lost their kids in Virginia and Oklahoma. (Where is the Humanity in that?) Officially there are about 100,000 kids in gay foster homes or who have been adopted by gay parents. I’m sure, for reasons stated above, that the number is much higher. Most kids with gay parents were born to one of those parents. The Boston Globe estimates 10,000,000. The ACLU, which I belong to, says 6 to 14 million. Anyway, there are a bunch of them.

Pablo:
I agree that it shouldn’t be done. Unfortunately, it probably will be done anyway. I’m just the bearer of bad news, not the author of it.

David Page wrote:

“Estimates range from two to eight million in the United States.”

Since I did not believe your numbers I went and looked on the Princeton site http://www.futureofchildren.org/ “The 2000 census counted about 594,000 households headed by same-sex couples, and it found children living in 27 percent of such households. The census did not, however, count the number of children in each home. So all we can say is that, conservatively, at least 166,000 children are being raised by gay and lesbian couples.”
I’m still surprised, but if one does the simple math, you are claiming a 10 to 50 fold increase in that number since 2008?

“Why don’t we just cut to the chase? Why don’t you direct me to the studies that support your position? Of course, these studies would have to compare children raised by two heterosexual parents with children raised by two gay parents. That way the numbers can’t be manipulated. I can’t find any such study.”

David it was not I who made the claim “There is plenty of information out there …”.  You actually make my point in that I also don’t think those studies exist.  However, there are studies which clearly show that children are best served when raised by their mother and father. That was my point.

> Actually, the scientists are working on that. They are trying to modify
> female cells so that they can act like sperm. I believe they have had
> some success in experiments on mice. If this procedure is eventually
> successful in human beings, lesbian couples will be able to produce baby
> girls who really do have ‘two mommies’, or, rather a mommy and a ‘daddy’
> who is female.

Wow!, I hope, for our own sake, that we never come to this.  This kind of manipulation can only have one outcome, and it is bad.

There is a saying: “man sometimes forgive, God always forgives, nature never does”.  This means that if we go against nature, nature will strike back with a vengeance.  Not everything that can be done, should be done.

>If two men or two women unite and they commit to their union >and even though they might love each other deeply, this >union lacks one fundamental attribute: “diversity”, this >union cannot produce offspring.
Actually, the scientists are working on that. They are trying to modify female cells so that they can act like sperm. I believe they have had some success in experiments on mice. If this procedure is eventually successful in human beings, lesbian couples will be able to produce baby girls who really do have ‘two mommies’, or, rather a mommy and a ‘daddy’ who is female.
(BTW, I don’t think it’s a good idea, but it will probably happen anyway....)

Jim said: “At best we are probably talking about relatively few children raised by same sex couples over the past few decades?”

Estimates range from two to eight million in the United States. Why don’t we just cut to the chase? Why don’t you direct me to the studies that support your position? Of course, these studies would have to compare children raised by two heterosexual parents with children raised by two gay parents. That way the numbers can’t be manipulated. I can’t find any such study.

David Page wrote:
“There is plenty of information out there to show that children raised by same sex couples do at least as well as as children raised by heterosexual couples.”

If the FDA used your criteria to approve new drugs I think most of us would be rightly concerned if not afraid to take them. 

Do you seriously want me to accept your appeal of “There is plenty of information ...”?  At best we are probably talking about relatively few children raised by same sex couples over the past few decades?  For how long have those children been followed? 10 or 20 or 30 years?  And the claim is “that children raised by same sex couples do at least as well as children raised by heterosexual couples” and how many centuries of “information” do we have that demonstrates that children have the best chance to do well when raised by their biological parents?

How far do you think the trading of stories, such as “In Massachusetts in the early ‘90s ...” is going to get us?  I don’t think it’s helpful to use rare occurrences as justification or as credibility for one’s argument.  Isn’t it a false hope to think that the rare occurrence proves to be the rule?

In reference to what constitutes confusion in defining a “child’s family” JohnC wrote:
“Not the slightest, unless your ideology clouds the issue.”
What is here called ideology is in fact what the overwhelming majority would call common sense.  Read the definition of family in the dictionary < http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/family> and that might help.
“You’re speaking in theory.  I’m speaking about real families who don’t really have the time to worry about your theories of societal utopianism.”
I have no theory to reference or point to; rather it is the reality we see demonstrated in one social study after another.  You have called this societal utopianism as if it were a negative thing to aspire to the greater or common good as in the wellbeing of children being best served in healthy families.
When I wrote “To speak of “ a healthy same-sex couple” as a family is an oxymoron.” your response is ...
“That’s your fact-free generalization.”
No, this is not my fact-free generalization.  Check for yourself: the first 6 points under the on-line dictionary definition of family can in no way be construed to refer to or define “same-sex couples” as families; healthy or otherwise.

So, it’s not a theory or ideology or societal utopianism; it’s the reality of family that is, and has always been, recognized and affirmed by all cultures.

There is plenty of information out there to show that children raised by same sex couples do at least as well as as children raised by heterosexual couples. Anecdotally you could watch the HBO special, ‘Rosie’s Cruise’. It breaks my heart to think what would have happened to some of these kids if they hadn’t been adopted, in this case, by same sex parents.
In Massachusetts in the early ‘90s, a less enlightened time, a young boy was taken from same sex foster parents and moved to a heterosexual foster home where the child was raped and murdered. When these decisions are made using just religious or ideological criteria, bad things are bound to happen. In this case any heterosexual household was deemed to be better than any same sex household and with tragic results. The child’s welfare obviously wasn’t really considered by the case worker.
JohnC is contemptuous of Utopianism and he should be. Utopian ideas always lead to tragedy. People never fit neatly into these Utopias and when they don’t the tendency is to try to bend the people rather than to relax the system. Nobody’s perfect but most people, gay or straight, left to their own devices, will try to do the best they can for themselves, their partners, and their kids.

“There appears to be lots of confusion here as to what constitutes “the child’s family”?”

Not the slightest, unless your ideology clouds the issue.

“I disagree, what “hurts real people and real families” is the lack of, or the breakdown of the “marriage” of the mother and the father.  Obviously, exceptions exist, but with those exceptions once outside of the bond of marriage there is pain all around.  What is not “self-satisfying and selfish” about the same sex couple’s pursuit of children?”

You’re speaking in theory.  I’m speaking about real families who don’t really have the time to worry about your theories of societal utopianism.

“To speak of “ a healthy same-sex couple” as a family is an oxymoron.”

That’s your fact-free generalization.  I’ve seen same-sex families that would easily disprove your theorizing and psuedo-sociology.

Dr J again.
I am glad that someone pointed out that many of the gay couples who are already raising children had those children from previous heterosexual relationships. In other words, the couple is not raising “their” child.  One partner is raising his or her own child, and the other partner is similar to a stepparent. The gay partner doesn’t automatically get parental rights because the child’s other biological parent is not automatically out of the picture.  Unless that parent surrenders their parental rights, or is found to be unfit, the child’s biological parent continues to have parental rights toward them. Under this scenario, the child who is living with a same sex couple is not “their” child. Marriage does not and should not attach the child to both members of the gay couple in this situation, any more than a heterosexual divorced woman getting remarried should automatically attach her children to her new husband.
Who are the same sex couples who are raising their own children? They can only be couples who have somehow acquired genetic material from some third party. It is that third party parent who is being ignored. Or more precisely, it is the child’s relationship to that third party that no one wants to look at too closely. One typical scenario is that one member of a lesbian couple gets impregnated by an anonymous sperm donor. All the adults agree to it, and we somehow think that is sufficient. But the child’s right to have a relationship with that parent is fundamentally violated.  It is the exact opposite of the trend toward open adoption, which honors the child’s right to relationship.

This is Dr J.
First of all, thank you everyone for taking my arguments seriously enough to debate them. I appreciate that very much. Permit me a few points.
1.  Adoption is a child-centered institution: it exists for the benefit of children whose parents cannot take care of them. There is no “right” to adopt.
2.  It is true that adopted children are separated from their biological parents. But the trend in adoption is toward open adoption, which gives the children the option to have a relationship with their biological parents.
3.  I am glad that someone pointed out that many of the gay couples who are already raising children had those children from previous heterosexual relationships. In other words, the couple is not raising “their” child.  One partner is raising his or her own child, and the other partner is similar to a stepparent. The gay partner doesn’t automatically get parental rights because the child’s other biological parent is not automatically out of the picture.  Unless that parent surrenders their parental rights, or is found to be unfit, the child’s biological parent continues to have parental rights toward them. Under this scenario, the child who is living with a same sex couple is not “their” child. Marriage does not and should not attach the child to both members of the gay couple in this situation, any more than a heterosexual divorced woman getting remarried should automatically attach her children to her new husband.

More later.

JohnC wrote:
“Denying the title of marriage to same-sex partners, when it is freely given to opposite sex partners, serves to stigmatize the child’s family.”
There appears to be lots of confusion here as to what constitutes “the child’s family”?
“Perhaps it feels self-satisfying for opponents of same-sex sex marriage to make an ideological statement, but it is a selfish act because it hurts real people and real families in the process.”
I disagree, what “hurts real people and real families” is the lack of, or the breakdown of the “marriage” of the mother and the father.  Obviously, exceptions exist, but with those exceptions once outside of the bond of marriage there is pain all around.  What is not “self-satisfying and selfish” about the same sex couple’s pursuit of children?
“And then there’s the implicit assumption being made that having opposite-sex parents is universally superior to opposite-sex families.”

JohnC where does the “implicit assumption” come from?  The statement makes no sense.  What is the implicit ideology?

“Should we always prefer placing children into a substandard hetero-led family if a healthy same-sex couple is available?”

With all of the regulations currently in place I would expect that the “substandard hetero-led family” is not considered for adoptions.  I think that from the child’s perspective it creates potential life long confusion.  To speak of “ a healthy same-sex couple” as a family is an oxymoron.