Here's a question for my conservative friends and family: if scientific research and evidence suggested that children did equally well in heterosexual and homosexual households, would you support gay marriage?
Today MSNBC.com posted this article, which reports on a recent study that basically makes that argument. What's more, this study makes up just a small part of the growing body of research that suggests children do fine in same-sex households. (Click here and look at page four, or here, or here.)
Of course, one study doesn't necessarily prove anything. And even if (or when?) virtually all studies say the same thing (that moment is arriving now, actually) people won't necessarily believe them (just look at all the denialism regarding global warming).
Yet one of the principle arguments against gay marriage is that children will suffer if it's legalized. What if it turns out that that excuse is patently false? Will gay marriage opponents who are generally rational in other regards retreat into mysticism? Will people be willing to base their opinions on evidence? Or will they base "evidence" on opinion?
Honestly, I doubt that most people will change their minds about gay marriage, no matter how compelling the scientific evidence becomes. I think that most same-sex marriage opponents are prompted to act based on religious grounds at best (and bigoted grounds at worst), but won't admit that (probably because the obvious rebuttal to an openly religious argument is that it's inherently un-American because it favors on religious belief system at the expense of another). In the end all the legal, scientific, and rational posturing from the anti-same-sex marriage crowd mostly comes off as a disingenuous veneer concealing the argument "God said this is the way things should be, and no matter the consequences that's what we're for."
Which, I suppose, is a fine argument if that's what people believe. I just wish same-sex opponents would quit lying to themselves (and everyone else) by saying that their position saves society from some great collapse. There is mounting scientific evidence that society doesn't suffer as a result of same-sex marriage. There is virtually no evidence that children suffer as a result of being raised in a homosexual household.
Ultimately, in my own case, this research (and my studying it over the years) has been one of the primary factors in convincing me to support same-sex marriage. I think that if something has a prejudicial effect on society at large, that thing should be restricted. Yet, if something turns out to be relatively harmless and allows people to live and believe as they choose, I think that thing should be allowed. Despite the fact that my religion, most of my family, and a fair number of my friends disagree, I'm yet to find a compelling and convincing argument against gay marriage that relies on a socially shared set of values (such as the need to protect children).
This issue is far from settled of course. But I think it's worth asking ourselves what happens if our arguments turn out to be wrong. What if they are disproved?
Friday, January 29, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
On the research on gay marriage: According to my father-in-law, a rather liberal professor in the BYU Marriage & Family Life department, most of the research on gay marriage shows the opposite, but because of the liberal bias in academia, these studies are given less publicity and are even less likely to be done in the first place for fear of "bad" results.
ReplyDeleteSo it seems that fear of disproving what we believe is present on both sides. How about asking the opposite question: if gay marriage was proven harmful for children, would that justify its banning or outlawing?
probably.
ReplyDeleteThough I disagree with your father in law in claiming that other institutions are simply biased. Maybe that's the case, but if the entire scientific community begins to reach a consensus (which they are), then to claim that that consensus is the result of political bias is merely the reject science.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I'd like to echo Liz's comment. I was a Marriage, Family, and Human Development minor and read studies on both sides of the argument, and it seems like there is actually more that shows that children who grow up in heterosexual homes do better. The research on growing up with homosexual parents in many cases parallels the research on children of divorce. Of course one could say that's a BYU bias, but it would be silly to think that BYU is the only place who has biases. Certainly one could claim a Berkeley bias or a Harvard Bias or a UCLA bias or a Notre Dame bias or whatever. But a lot of research continually shows that the best environment for children is a two-parent, heterosexual home. That doesn't mean that living in a homosexual home would devastate the life of every child who experiences it, but I'm hoping that as a society we shoot for giving people the BEST possible experience instead of a "fine" one.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly enough, I have no problem saying that my main reason for not approving of gay marriage is that the Lord does not approve of it. It's my reason for not approving of cohabitation too. And my reason for not approving of theft or murder or lying or being mean to people. That's always reason #1.
That said, I am also less concerned about gay marriage per se than I am about homosexuals being able to adopt children. That really bothers me, mostly because of the things we read about it in my minor classes. If it were just marriage... well, whatever. I think that marriage is just a word and we have to live in a specific way to make it holy.
And on a totally unrelated side note, I think the rebuttal that says to favor one's belief system over another is sort of a ridiculous rebuttal. First of all, any devout person does it--and I think they should. I certainly do. I think that my religion is the best there is. That doesn't mean that I shouldn't love and respect and treat well those who have a different religion, but I do actually believe that mine is better because it offers more. And that's why I'm part of it. I would hope that any good Catholic or Jew or Baha'i or whatever would feel the same. I don't think there's anything un-American about that at all. And in legal terms, somebody is going to feel they got the short end of the stick either way, because when a choice between two arguments is made, that choice ultimately says, "We value this argument more." I don't know if there is any way to step around that.
*sorry for the deleted comment -- I had to fix a spelling error. :)
Makayla,
ReplyDeleteSorry to pick your argument apart, since I don't even know you, but I take serious issue with your notion that an official government sanction of one religious belief over another is acceptable.
You are more than welcome to keep your religion and think that it is better than all others. Enforcing that through government actions, however, is the worst form of tyranny, and is fundamentally opposite of what America means (even if "any devout person does it" or wants to do it).
I'm agnostic on the point of what the evidence says, since I haven't read it, but I think that the courts will be forced to strike down gay marriage bans if social science can't prove that its existence poses a measurable threat to children or society.
Would you be ok with a law which banned Mormons from adopting children, since most people in the U.S. share the religious conviction that those kids would be better raised by a Baptist or Catholic? Sure, there's absolutely no evidence to support this claim, and many of you are thinking that such laws are out of the purview of the government, but if we're leaving such decisions to a straight up vote, I'd be willing to bet that there would be strong support for it in the Bible belt.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteInteresting question. It's unfortunate you limit your audience to conservatives, considering this issue is not limited by political boundaries.
Your question is really useful in the discussion because in discussions people get distracted by both studies and religion. Growing up in same-gender parented household may not be detrimental; however, children's inherent right to mom and a dad is never addressed in the studies.
@ Daine,
ReplyDeleteI don't quite see how voting on a religious belief in a democracy can be called tyranny. If a person of faith votes on a feeling and a gay person votes on a feeling (and when it comes right down it, all gay people are voting on feeling [i.e. "I feel attracted to this person"]), then why should one person's vote be called tyranny and another democracy? I'd say that for better or worse this is a debate that banks on feeling from both sides.
@ Jim,
People keep saying that conservatives aren't basing their stance on data, but I don't see how they possibly can. Whether children can be raised successfully by gay or straight couples isn't too revealing because these studies are comparing fallible couples to fallible couples. We've got such an excess of bad parenting across the board that saying that gay couples raise kids just as poorly as straight couples is hardly reason to justify legalizing gay marriage.
The data we need can't be gathered because we can't see what America would be like in 100 years if we started celebrating gay marriage. The data we need is in the future. We need the answers to these questions: 1) How will America change if our government celebrates gay marriage? 2) If the US government legalizes gay marriage and actively supports gay marriage celebrations, what tensions will it create between traditional religion and the US government?
A government-sponsored celebration of gay marriage in America would create one of the rare cases in which a traditional religion would be forced to actively and forthrightly oppose US government.
You might point to other instances where government has legalized things the Mormons oppose (cigarettes, beer, etc.), and you'd be right to say that just because the government legalizes something doesn't mean that it supports it. It's true. In these cases government taxes. In the case of gay marriage, however, the fact that the government would legalize a celebration means that the government would condone and support the celebrations (i.e. celebrate them). In other words, because this is a very rare instance when the government would actively support something many Mormons oppose, it makes sense for many Mormons to oppose it, even though they don't have proof of the consequences the future may or may not bring.
I think this is a really difficult issue. Personally I don't think I have a problem with the idea of same sex marriage; my wish is that everyone can be happy. Also since it's very hard to base legislation entirely on the "ideal" situation as far as family goes (we don't have laws saying that alcoholics can't have babies and that's a much more serious issue as far as kids' well being goes) I feel like it's pretty frail legally to try to base an anti same-sex argument on the idea that it might hurt the kids.
ReplyDeleteThat being said I have also read about recent studies that say that children do best if they grow up in a home with their biological parents - both a man and a woman. A few of these studies were performed by staunch liberals who were surprised by their own results (= most likely unbiased). I think that the reason people don't believe wholeheartedly in one study or another is because so many of them say opposing things.
Daine, I think that what Makayla meant is that everyone votes according to their own moral compass. And she's right. Even non-religious people vote according to what they feel (as Jon Ogden said) is best. I'd like anyone to try to prove that any law was based entirely on objective rationality. Also there is, from what I understand, a legal difference between a law that specifically targets a religious group for good or for ill and a law which decides what sort of society the majority of people would like to live in. (Side note: Homosexuality does not represent a religious faith, so it's not a case of one religion up against another.)
I also worry about a society where it is acceptable to decide who and who cannot have children. But we do already live in a society where that is possible to some degree. For instance, the government is free to take children away from family situations which are considered dangerous. How do we decide what is dangerous or abusive? It varies from culture to culture. In other words, it's simply based on the moral compass of our society. It's on a different level than same sex marriage, but a similar principle.
Another thing I want answered is what IS homosexuality, actually. I mean, what causes it? It was taken off the list of psychological disorders. I think it's pretty fair to say that most people (I'm guessing in the 90% range - not 100% because I do know of people who have simply experimented and gone back to heterosexuality) do not feel that they have a choice about being homosexual. But if they don't have a choice, there has to be some explanation of why that is. I have been trying to find scientific research about what causes homosexuality and so far have found nothing.
If people are going to argue for same sex marriage by saying that it is a civil right upheld by the US constitution, I'd say they better know what same homosexuality is. It's not the same as race or gender (the supreme court has made this distinction), which means that the argument against civil union which says that separate but equal isn't good enough may not actually fly legally. If homosexuality is some genetic mutation or hormone imbalance or something along those lines then separate but equal may be good enough. (Deaf people are allowed to drive, but with restrictions, for instance.) So legally it really matters what homosexuality is.
Everything I'm saying boils down to one point: neither side of this issue is basing its argument entirely on rational, provable factors right now. So I think that BOTH sides should admit this. Not just those who are against same sex marriage.
Hi Daine,
ReplyDeleteI think you misunderstood what I was saying. It's not that I think it's fine to officially sanction one religious belief over another. What I'm saying is that in making a choice between two groups or people with differing views, that is what happens. I hope that judges and senators and voters do the best they can to be as fair as they can. I hope they use good evidence. I hope they consider future implications of their decisions. I hope they choose as fairly as is humanely possible. But in the end, a choice is a choice, and somebody loses. One side's view is validated as more acceptable than the other's. I see no escaping that. And so I think we should do the best we can to be fair and kind and tolerant, but I don't see anything wrong with voting based on what one believes is best. That is simply what happens. And though Jim wasn't necessarily making the argument that "an openly religious argument is ... inherently un-American because it favors on religious belief system at the expense of another," I was merely commenting that such an argument seems ridiculous to me, because if that is the case then everyone who stands up for any belief they feel is true is ultimately un-American. I just don't buy that.
I'm sorry if I was not clear to begin with. :)
Jim,
ReplyDeleteI'm not really surprised by the results of this study.
First, there are a limited number of ways that homosexual couples can acquire children. Either they already had them with someone else, adopted them, or used artificial reproductive technologies of some kind (including surrogate mothers).
With the exception of the first example, the methods homosexual couples have available to them all demand a lot of time and money: two things that go far in raising a well-adjusted, healthy child. Therefore, since homosexual couples can't accidentally have a child, they are perhaps more prepared mentally, emotionally, and financially for the responsibilities that come with raising children.
Fifty years ago, marriage was the way (generally speaking) that people prepared for those responsibilities. Marriage and rearing children were basically synonymous. Now, marriage is seen more as an emotional/mental/physical/spiritual/legal relationship between two people and the rearing children part is optional or just something else.
My basic point (and I think the article points this out) is that there are innumerable variables that affect how well kids "do" while being raised. Relatedly, homosexual couples who go through the time and effort to have children, likely fall into the same socioeconomic class as their successful child-rearing heterosexual counterparts. This would explain (at least to me) the similarities in quantitative measures of how kids do (education level, lack of criminal activity, health, etc.)
What's harder is the qualitative aspects of being raised by parents of differing or same genders. How do you measure and compare that? In other words, how do you measure whether kids are doing well or not from a qualitative standpoint? For example, how do children raised by same-sex couples differ from children raised by heterosexual couples in attitudes about gender roles/love/marriage/religion/social activism/crime/sports/whatever? Then, if they are different, is difference bad?
Liz and Mckayla,
ReplyDeleteI'm really just following a tangent here, but I thought it was interesting that my experiences with BYU's Marriage, Family, Human Development classes were at odds with yours. As an education major I was required to take a couple classes with that department. They were survey courses, so we didn't spend a ton of time on the advantages/disadvantages of children being raised in heterosexual/homosexual households,but we did touch on it. One of my profesors said that there was basically no effect (negative or positive) on children being raised by homosexual parents. The other profesor believed that children who are raised by same-gendered parents tended to "do better" (were better adjusted socially, did better academically, etc.--- possibly for reasons that J. Faux pointed out).
Anyway, just thought I would point out that there is hardly a consensus at BYU on the issue by the people who are experts in the field.
Thanks for this post, Jim. Children aside, one issue that has not been touched upon here is the difficult position that a civic government is in when it is charged with enforcing what some people value as a religious ceremony. If one is against gay marriage because one believes marriage to be a sacred (that is religiously authorized) institution, then the state has no business authorizing marriage. If one believes, on the other hand, that the state performs a legal function that secures property and other rights by authorizing marriages, then one segment of the population cannot be denied the right to benefit from that state function.
ReplyDeleteJust sayin'...
ReplyDeleteAgain, at the school where I worked there was a girl there who was raised by gay parents... two moms. She had a LOT LOT LOT of issues many stemming from the relationship with her and her moms. I can't go into detail due to confidentiality agreements but she was directly affected in negative ways (not discounting the positive) by her mothers' relationship. I know this is not the case for all children in a family with gay parents but this is my firsthand experience in sitting with a child, be involved in her therapy and everyday life as she tried to make sense of herself. It's amazing how our every decision affects the lives of our children eventually.
I agree with anonymous... and would say that since the government currently has the power to authorize marriages, that it is unethical for it to pick and choose which relationships it legitimizes-- that right should belong exclusively to the individuals in the relationship (regardless of the individuals' religious beliefs, race, sexual orientation, etc). The plight of homosexual couples today seems very similar to me as that of interracial couples in the US before 1967.
ReplyDeleteAnd a side note to Jill,
I thought it relevant that you mentioned one girl at the clinic who had issues in part because she had "two moms," and I was just curious how many teenagers were there because they had issues in part with mom and dad, or any other various more socially accepted form of guardian(s).
anonymous & laura,
ReplyDeleteI don't think it is per se unethical for the government to pick and choose which marriages they will authorize.
In order to qualify for marriage most states require that people be of a certain age, that they have the mental capacity to marry, that they not already be married to someone else, that the couple not be too closely related (even by adoption), etc. There are legitimate reasons for denying those people the "right" to marry, or at least, widely accepted reasons for denying child marriage/incest/polygamy/etc. even though they may not be rational, based on facts, and there are anecdotal accounts praising/deriding the benefits/harms of each.
If you see marriage as an optional, contractual relationship between two (or more) people that requires authorization by the government, then the government can set out the requirements for people to qualify for the benefits it chooses to confer. Those requirements are made by a legislature chosen by and representing the People.
I think the important question is: Should sexual orientation be treated the same, for discrimination purposes, as race and religion? FYI – gender discrimination is NOT treated by the Supreme Court the same way they treat discrimination based on race, national origin, and religion. That difference is not arbitrary but it is controversial.
There are pretty compelling arguments on both sides as to how sexual orientation should be treated legally.
They are discussed in some depth here: http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C4/43C4t757.htm
@ jim.
ReplyDeletei agree with you completely and find it silly that the only argument really against gay marrige is the word marrige itself. whats sad is that straight marrige intitles the married to certain financial benefits, which gay union does not. i dont know how to post a link in this comment but there is a very interesting episode of "30 days" from the guy who did "super size me" about gay adoption. it can be found on hulu.com. thanks
martin