Gay Marriage Doesn't Hurt Children

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?

Debate

Hands down my favorite activity in the world is debating. In reality, it doesn’t matter what I’m debating, as long as it’s relatively interesting and can be approached from a few different angles. However, I’ve found that the more time goes by, the less inclined I am to actually engage people in a rousing debate. Why is that?

Probably part of it has to do with the fact that for the last four months I’ve basically been sitting in a room by myself. I was writing, applying to grad schools, editing video, and sometimes just wasting time. However, do that long enough and your social skills are bound to suffer.

Yet, if deteriorating social skills can partially explain my waning motivation to debate, a bigger reason might be my writing itself. In the last six months or so I’ve started this blog, begun writing for Rhombus Magazine, and (as of a few days ago), become a features writer as the Daily Herald.

All this writing takes a lot of time, but it has also changed the way I think about issues. Whereas in the past I’ve been content to debate an issue with someone, each side making logical points that emerge from pre-existing knowledge, I’ve come to see that approach as frustratingly uninformed. As a result of all the writing I’ve been doing (and just because I’m a news junkie) I spend hours and hours reading different websites, newspapers, and commentary. Consequently, when I casually debating something I can usually recall specific articles that I’m drawing from. I typically want to “cite my sources” as a way to prove that my points are valid (which, admittedly, might be a rhetorical cop-out).

For example, Laura and I frequently go to dinner at my parents’ house on Sunday evenings. On one of our recent visits someone mentioned that the “United States was the country with the most opportunity in the world and the highest standard of living.” Debate often ensues at these dinners, and my dad and I found ourselves taking up opposing positions on this topic; he supporting it, and I opposing.

After a few minutes however, I began to be frustrated because all the supporting evidence seemed to be abstract ideas about patriotism (i.e. opinion with no supporting evidence). On the other hand, I could recall dozens of articles discussing how the U.S. has lower life expectancy than most the world, lower happiness, worse health, high unemployment, no health care system to speak of, etc., etc., etc. In the following days I actually posted a whole bunch of links to news articles and Wikipedia entries supporting my position on my dad’s Facebook page. My point: if the U.S. has fallen behind in every quantifiable way, it doesn’t make sense to keep saying it’s the best. (And by extension, we need to make changes.)

Similarly, last time Laura and I went to dinner global warming can up and the point was made that because the recently stolen emails revealed fudged numbers global warming was a myth. Now to me this simply seemed absurd; it’s like saying that if we found out Newton was a phony there is no gravity. Regardless of Newton’s honesty, someone only has to look around to realize that gravity does indeed exist. However, more to the point I’ve read extensively about global warming and despite the stolen emails there is still scientific consensus on it.

I bring up both of these issues not because I’m trying to debate them here, but to demonstrate that a casual debate simply isn’t going to work in these instances. My family members are good debaters, but without any hard evidence their points simply seemed like uniformed opinion (as mine probably did to them). What's more, in a conversation around a dinner table its really hard to actually have any hard evidence. I could certainly be swayed on either issue, but for that to happen I’d have to see some clear evidence that I’m wrong. Simply insisting that global warming is a myth, or that American is a land of opportunity, isn’t enough. It doesn’t bring anything new to the table and is wholly inadequate in the face of so much readily available information.

My conclusion is that verbal debate among friends and family is typically a fruitless endeavor because it so often fails to incorporate evidence into the argument. In the end, it’s just people’s opinions and both sides can always question the reliability of “facts” recalled from memory. Unlike a scientific study or even a newspaper article (which should cite studies), the evidence available to people in a casual debate is pretty shaky. On the other hand, if people actually want to understand an issue (or persuade others about it), it is important to “cite sources,” which is easier done online where it’s possible to link to actual evidence.

I still love debate for the sake of debate (and for the sake of sharpening my rhetorical skills). However, I think that the Internet (and in my case my writing/research) has emphasized to me the importance of debate supported by mutually accepted “facts.” Hopefully that means that as our lives become increasingly digital, our debates become more intellectually rigorous.

Going Home Culture

Throughout my time as a college undergrad I was puzzled and slightly intrigued by my friends who had families near by. As a Californian living in Utah, seeing my family was a two or three times a year affair. I’d go home during Thanksgiving and Christmas, and maybe during summer, but for the most part I didn’t see them much.

That, however, contrasted significantly with my friends from Utah who went home at least several times a month. In the case of my roommates I’d always notice them taking their laundry and coming home from Sunday dinner with leftovers. I have to admit that in many ways I was envious of these friends; they obviously had the opportunity to cultivate a stronger relationship with their families, and they also saved money by eating their parent’s food and using their parent’s washing machine.

Though my family lived in California for years, just as I graduated they moved to Utah and I subsequently began to experience the decidedly different culture that exists among family members living within driving distance of each other. Of course, I was recently married by this time and no longer an undergrad, but I still began to do many of the things I’d seen my friends do before. I started taking advantage of my parent’s washing machine. Laura and I started going (and continue to go) to dinner at my family’s house nearly every week. Occasionally we go hang out with them or do things for family night.

As we’ve done this I’ve been surprised at the difference between having family far away and having them nearby. Though that difference was apparent to me before when I had experienced only one of those two options, I don’t think I could fully appreciate it until my family moved to Utah.

For example, as Laura and I prepare to visit her family for Christmas she mentioned how we might not want to bring piles of dirty laundry home (though we have done this in the past and may still in the future). We also don’t think of Laura’s parent’s home as a source of delicious free food.

More seriously however, the kind of relationship that is fosters between family members is largely contingent on how often they communicate and through what medium. The actual conversations that we have with my family, for example, are affected by how much time we spend at their home. It’s also obvious to see how the various things going on in our lives (school, work, stress generally, etc.) changes the kind of relationship we have. On the other hand, a fair amount of time we spend with Laura’s family is going to inevitably be reserved for catching up and/or reasserting the familiar connection we feel.

All of this is really just to say that distance still plays a significant factor in the kind of relationships people can have. Though the Internet and other technologies continue to “shrink” the world, I don’t think they actually allow relationship to transcend or circumvent distance. I’m not arguing that one kind of relationship is better (be it long or short), but that no matter how many phone calls a person makes to their long distance family they can never have the same kind of “going home” culture as a person with family nearby and vice versa.

Thanksgiving: The Best Holiday of the Year

Thanksgiving is unequivocally the best holiday of the year. Though it consistently ranks below Christmas on many people’s personal holiday rankings, it deserves more credit.

 

Of course, the most obvious reason to praise Thanksgiving is the way it is celebrated. Thanksgiving is practically synonymous with food and feasts. Admittedly, if you aren’t a fan of turkey, pies, mashed potatoes, etc. (and I know many people aren’t) Thanksgiving will probably hold significantly less appeal. On the other hand, Thanksgiving food is fairly varied and most people don’t hate all the traditional dishes. More importantly, perhaps, a Thanksgiving feast provides an opportunity for creativity. This year, for example, my family and I had the typical pies but Laura and I also made banana cake. Last year someone brought sautéed mushrooms. Though these kinds of food definitely weren’t on the Pilgrims menu, they are delicious and any holiday that provides an excuse to eat good food has a lot going for it. Ultimately then, even if you don’t love Thanksgiving food, you can still use the day as an excuse to make and eat a lot of other delicious things.

 

While food is certainly a big part of Thanksgiving, I would argue that is isn’t the most important part. Instead, the most significant part of Thanksgiving is being able to spend time with family or friends. Again, I know that not everyone enjoys this part of the holiday. I also know that there are many people who can’t get together with their families. However, the fact that the Wednesday before Thanksgiving is the biggest travel day of the year suggests that celebrating with loved ones is a typical or at least common thing to do. What’s more, whether you get along with your family or not, Thanksgiving is among the least stressful ways to get together. You don’t to worry about things like presents, and the attention is never on one person as it might be during a wedding, birthday celebration, graduation, etc. 

 

There are a number of other reasons to appreciate Thanksgiving. It takes place in the fall, for example, so it’s not as cold as Christmas but it’s not as hot as the Fourth of July. It also means a day off from work for most people and two days for many (and three for students and teachers). The list could go on and on, but the point is that Thanksgiving genuinely has more to offer than most holidays.

 

Of course, Thanksgiving is also good because of the ways that it isn’t celebrated. As I mentioned above, there are no presents as there is with Christmas. Obviously if you love getting (or giving) things that might seem like a negative thing, but realistically presents raise stress. You have to find just the right thing for everyone, worry about whether they’ll like it, and then act surprised/impressed/excited about what they gave you no matter how you actually feel. Sometimes none of those things are a big deal, but other times they cause serious tensions. At very least Christmas requires everyone to put on a show and by comparison Thanksgiving comes off as a much more sincere holiday.

 

Thanksgiving also isn’t commercialized the way that Christmas or Halloween are. To be honest, the commercial aspect of Christmas is really the only part of the holiday that makes me feel the seasonal “spirit”; I can’t, for example, get into Christmas unless I’ve seen tons of Christmas commercials. However, Thanksgiving’s charm is that you don’t have to “get into” the holiday in the first place. There is relatively little buildup and, consequently, no let down when the day actually comes. As an adult I can’t stress this point enough. Though I loved Christmas as a child it is inevitably disappointing as an adult when I know that there is no magical, Santa-related ending and that the best thing that will happen is that I’ll get to sleep in. Those things are great, but hardly worthy of weeks and weeks of anticipation. Thanksgiving, by contrast, includes the best parts about Christmas without the huge anticipation and subsequent let down.

 

I could go on and on about how much better Thanksgiving is than all other holidays (in the U.S.). Instead, however, suffice it to say that in these first days of December I’m reminded of how much more thankful I am for Thanksgiving than all other holidays.

Staying Home… For a Gender Fantasy?

Every once in a awhile my church’s magazine, The Ensign, will include something alarming and objectionable.  Unfortunately, the upcoming August issue includes just such an article.  Covering a short three pages, “Staying Home…Again” (by “name withheld”) relays the story of a mother’s struggle to balance child-rearing and work.  While the subject matter is timely, the point of the story—that women have an inherent responsibility to stay at home and take care of kids and accordingly should sacrifice careers to do so—isn’t simply wrong, it’s offensive. 

 

The article begins innocently enough by describing how the anonymous author was essentially forced back to work because of the economy.  While her husband ran one business she had to assume the responsibilities of a second one when they were unable to successfully sell it.  Eventually, she began to enjoy work more than being home and struggled with how to raise her children. 

 

If the first page or so paints a refreshingly complex picture of the challenges facing modern parents, the rest of the article clings to painfully outmoded gender stereotypes.  Once the author realized that she was enjoying work more than home life, she felt guilty and, more disturbingly, described herself as having “veered” from the “path.”  Things only get worse from there: she decided to pray for forgiveness for “straying so far from my divine role” and asked God to help her to want to fulfill that role and provide her with a way to do so. 

 

Throughout the article I was astounded at how little was mentioned about the husband/father.  Why wasn’t he helping raise the children?  Why was it only the woman’s job to fix dinners and attend to household duties?  Why didn’t he feel guilt about not being at home enough?  Maybe he did feel these things, but what stands out is the fact that the author never indicates her husband was shirking his responsibilities.  Instead she insinuates that her “divine role” is to be completely domestic, while his is to gallivant through the professional world having a good time.  Not surprisingly, the article ends with a return to gender stasis: the mother stays home raising the kids and the father continues to be a semi-absent figure.   

 

The problem with this article isn’t that a woman stayed home to raise kids while a man worked (both valid choices, of course, if people find fulfillment through them), but rather that the author claimed that God required her to behave in ways that were mentally and emotionally damaging. What a person (male or female) does professionally and domestically is a private decision and shouldn’t be determined by wrongheaded social proclamations on gender roles.  In this case, the author didn’t just give up work, she also sacrificed her psychological health (and, I’d argue, her spiritual health) in favor of an absurd and unsustainable fantasy about motherhood.  In the end, I can only imagine that if this story ever had a sequel, it would resemble “The Yellow Wallpaper” more than the hollow “faith promoting” rubbish that it aspires to right now.

 

Ultimately, if The Ensign’s usual emphasis on simple hagiography is understandable, its inclusion of marginalizing gender propaganda is not.  Forcing people into roles that leave them unfulfilled will not increase anyone’s well being, nor will it bring them closer to God.  (The editors also apparently missed the irony of including in the same issue articles on computer addiction and postpartum depression.)  As a practicing Mormon myself these aren’t the values that I believe in and it saddens me when a publication that has so much potential to help people instead stoops to misguided didacticism.  

Living With Family

Ever since the financial meltdown last year I’ve seen a lot of down-on-their-luck stories on various news websites.  Not surprisingly, one of the stories that keeps coming up describes people who have lost their homes and are forced to move in with family members.  While I don’t doubt the difficulty of this situation or the heartbreak of losing a home, I’ve also begun to wonder if concentrating a large, extended family in one location is such a bad thing after all. 

 

Most people I know in the U.S. eventually strike out on their own.  For example, I left home when I was eighteen and though I didn’t become financially independent for a number of years, I also never moved back.  In fact the idea of moving back home and living with my parents is a little bit disturbing to me.  This pattern and mentality seem fairly typical.  Not only that, they seem to represent the desirable norm; its not hard to think of people (fictional or not) who live with their parents and are thusly looked down on.

 

Even if this is the standard pattern in the U.S. today, it isn’t as common in other parts of the world or in the past.  My first hand experiences in Brazil and Great Briton, as well as my understanding of history, lead me to believe that a more common worldwide (and historical) pattern is for people to live with or near their parents for generation after generation.  If that fact doesn’t necessarily change what we contemporary Americans want to do, it at least indicates that people can lead happy, fulfilling lives whether they strike out on their own or live close to home.

 

The question as I see it then, is if adults are better off living in larger family units or only with their partners (and children).  In my case, after having been conditioned all my life to look down on living with my family, I imagine it would be difficult to ever return home.  However, if we as a society began to look more critically at this idea and see its possible advantages I think we might  find that those advantages may outweigh any sacrifices.  Obviously living in larger numbers means less privacy, personal freedom, and personal space.  On the other hand it may also mean less loneliness, greater division of labor, and a stronger family culture.  It may just be possible that the pros of living with family outweigh the cons. 

 

Ultimately Americans seem to conceive of themselves in highly individualistic terms.  As long as we continue to think that way, any loss of individuality will seem like a disaster.  Having to give up the freedom of financial prosperity (and the homes that prosperity provides) will be a dehumanizing experience that robs people of their identity and makes them a burden on those around them.  (It’s no surprise, then, that many of the stories about the economic crisis have focused on the disruption that adult offspring cause in the lives of their parents, as well as the tendency to revert back to adolescent behavior once at home.)

 

However, I think that it’s possible to see ourselves not as detached individuals but as members of larger communities and/or families.  This probably won’t make losing a job or a home less painful, but it may mitigate the impact on people’s self-perception and the difficulty of living with family.  In other words, if we conceive of ourselves as members of a family or community first, and homeowners or professionals second, our identity will no longer be based on the caprice of the capitalist economy.  What’s more, if we start to think of ourselves in this way living with our families starts to seem like less of a set back and more of a return to our homelands and our heritage.