Be very wary about things you feel are obvious. An unexamined impression is often false or incomplete. The things which seem most obvious are the very things which need to be thought about, tested, and subjected to comparison with how things really work in the real world.
The contrary was obvious for centuries. However, people generally accept nowadays that women should have rights equal to those of men, including the right to pursue careers, choose their spouses, utilize contraception, own property, and consent to or refuse sex even in the context of marriage.
This is kind of what I pointed out to you very early on when I talked about the Married Womens’ Property Acts and spousal rape legislation: the traditional definition of marriage no longer exists, because traditional gender rules no longer apply. Gone are the days when the husband went to work and the wife tended to home and hearth (though of course people are still free to adopt those traditional roles).
Also gone with those days are traditional assumptions about what constitutes a family, which is why most people no longer recoil in shock at the idea that a mother or father might raise a child alone, among other things.
It is obvious that there are biological differences between men and women, of course. It’s no longer obvious, or even widely accepted, that those biological differences must be reflected in sociological ones.
Do you live in a cave, where a child’s parents are the only adults in his or her life, and posts like #465 go unanswered?
Actually, it occurs to me that even if the mechanism by which gay marriage supposedly undermines society could not be proved, its effects (if they exist) could at least be shown, but we can’t even get that much from the SSM opponents.
To be fair, nothing stands out in her credentials as a negative. She is a clinical psychologist with a Ph.D. from a respected university in California.
At first her paper looks to be a meta-analysis of the research but there is none of the statistical testing needed for such a review.
[QUOTE=Dr. Hansen]
I conducted a review of all the studies I could locate which assessed sexual preference in homosexually parented children.
[/QUOTE]
So it’s not about the suitability of parents but rather if the parents are homosexual, will the children be homosexual. So in the first sentence hoopified’s contentions are unsupported because it either has nothing to do with the suitability of parents or it equate homosexuality as a negative i.e. if your kid turns out gay, you’re a bad parent.
[QUOTE=Dr. Hansen]
the authors of the study had to be pro-homosexual researchers, otherwise I was concerned that critics would simply disregard the results.
[/QUOTE]
This bothers me. Pro-homosexual researchers are honest while anti-homosexual researchers are not? Seems like a lot of data to be dismissed. BTW: I have no clue if Dr. Hansen is pro-homosexual or not.
[QUOTE=Dr. Hansen]
Pro-homosexual researchers frequently claim studies find “no differences” between children raised by homosexuals and heterosexuals. Amazingly, these claims are made in the abstracts of research studies that actually uncovered differences (Williams, 2000). The tendency to deny or downplay differences has been noted by pro-homosexual parenting researchers. After reviewing 21 studies, Stacey and Biblarz (2001) concluded that in regards to gender, sexual behavior and sexual preference, homosexually parented children are different from heterosexually parented children.
[/QUOTE]
There is a key word Hansen never alludes to. “Significant”. With her Ph.D. she should know that there can be differences between two groups but that they are insignificant. As an example, if I told you that 15.8% of children of SSR (same-sex relationships) are gay but only 15.6% of children of OSR (opposite-sex relationships) are gay is there a difference? Yes. Is it significant? No, and any researcher would look at the two groups as being the same. The fact that Hansen doesn’t point out if differences are significant makes me wary.
[QUOTE=Dr. Hansen]
Other researchers have reviewed homosexual parenting studies in general and concluded that they’re either too problematic to make definitive claims (Belcastro, Gramlich, Nicholson, Price, and Wilson, 1993; Baumrind, 1995) or so methodologically flawed that no conclusions can be drawn (Lerner and Nagai, 2001)
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Dr. Hansen]
Pro-homosexual parenting researchers and other activists can’t have it both ways. Either the findings of these studies are valid and homosexual parents are more likely to raise non-heterosexual children, or these studies aren’t valid and assertions of “no difference” can’t be made.
[/QUOTE]
But Dr. Hansen will have it both ways, taking as valid the facts that she wants to.
So the studies are flawed but she’ll assume the information is correct. She then gives descriptions of 9 studies. I found this one interesting:
[QUOTE=Bozett, F.W. (1988). Social control of identity of children of gay fathers.
Western Journal of Nursing Research, 10(5), 550-565.]
Bozett’s Demographic Description:[Bozette’s study included] “19 subjects, 13 females and 6 males, representing 14 gay fathers. Children’s ages ranged from 14 to 35; 9 were in their teens, 6 in their 20s, and 4 were between 30 and 35. All of the children were biological, except 1 who was adopted at the age of 2 by a single man. Two of the six males identified themselves as gay, 1 female said she was bisexual, and the remainder of the women reported they were heterosexual.”
My [Dr. Hansen’s] Comments:
Overall, 16% of those in Bozett’s sample self-identified as non-heterosexual, a figure eight times higher than the national average. Additionally, many theorists believe that there may be differential impacts on homosexually-parented children depending on the sex of the homosexual parent and the sex of the child. So, perhaps most dramatic among Bozett’s findings is the fact that 33% of the male children of homosexual fathers identified themselves as homosexual. And, these results may be an under-estimate because nearly half of Bozette’s subjects were teenagers who may eventually label themselves as non-heterosexual.
[/QUOTE]
Nature vs. Nurture? If there is a genetic componant of homosexuality, then wouldn’t looking exclusively at children of homosexual parents give a similar finding?
[QUOTE=Goldberg, A. (2007). (How) does it make a difference? Perspectives of adults with lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,77(4), 550-562.]
The Author’s Abstract: “Few studies have addressed the experiences or perceptions of adult children of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) parents. In this study, 46 adult children of LGB parents were interviewed, and their perceptions of how growing up with LGB parents
influenced them as adults were examined. Qualitative analysis revealed that adults felt that they were more tolerant and open-minded and had more flexible ideas about gender and sexuality as a function of growing up with LGB parents. Participants often felt protective of their parents and the gay community, and some went to great efforts to defend them to peers, family members, and society. Some participants struggled with issues of trust in adulthood, which they related to the experience of their parents’ unexpected coming out, as well as to experiences of teasing and bullying. The importance of understanding these findings in the context of societal heterosexism is discussed.”
My [Dr. Hansen’s] Comments: The subjects in Goldberg’s study ranged in age from 19 to 50. In this study, 91% of them believed that having non-heterosexual parents “influenced their ideas about gender and relationships,” and “felt having LGB parents had led them to develop less rigid and more flexible notions and ideas about sexuality and gender.” Based on those beliefs, it’s not surprising that 17% of Goldberg’s subjects identified themselves as non-heterosexual (lesbian, bisexual or gender-queer). Goldberg summed up her findings and the findings of others by stating that children of LGB parents are “socialized to question rigid and confining notions of sexuality and gender and to view a range of sexual and gender identities as appropriate…” Goldberg’s study lends direct support to the belief offered by other researchers (Baumrind, 1995; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001) that the sexual attitudes and lifestyles of parents do influence the attitudes and lifestyles of their children.
[/QUOTE]
I pulled this one out because I would love to know exactly what is being used to define homosexuality. Assuming the responses are honest, are they quantifiable e.g. “How many homosexual experiences have you had?” or qualitative e.g. “Do you consider yourself a homosexual.” Maybe what this study is showing is that if your parents are gay, you are more willing to admit that the couple of blowjobs you gave makes you bi-curious as opposed to “I’m not a fag!”
Not to bore you with the description, this study would seem to indicate that about 8% of children of lesbian parents identify as full-on Prince Poppycock gay while 16% have indicated some homosexual attraction at times. Cf. to my comments above in regards to the similar 17% in Goldberg’s study.
[QUOTE=Haack-Moller, A. & Mohl, H. (1984). Born af lesbiske modre [Children of
lesbian mothers]
. Dansk Psykolog Nyt, 38, 316-318.]
Description of Haack-Moller & Mohl’s Study: Haack-Moller and Mohl did a 10 year follow-up study of children raised by lesbian mothers. The original study was conducted by Nini Leick and John Nielsen. Haack- Moller and Mohl were able to contact 13 of the original 15 children and all 13 agreed to be re-interviewed. The sample of children consisted of 6 boys and 7 girls ranging in age from 14 to 31. Of this small sample, 1 child of a lesbian mother was reported as having a homosexual preference, representing 8% of the total. Haack-Moller and Mohl stated that the mothers’ lesbianism had been problematic for the children. Overall, it was most difficult for the sons, although children of both sexes reported negative reactions and problems with peers. Moreover, all of the children had, at one time, expressed the wish for a father and “a real family.”
My [Dr. Hansen’s] Comments: Another small sample utilizing children as young as 14, thereby increasing the chances that 8% is an under-estimate of the true percentage of non-heterosexuals in this sample. Unfortunately, the sex of the one homosexual child was not identified
[/QUOTE]
This is the only study in Dr. Hansen’s paper that remotely supports hoopified’s contention that SSR may negatively affect their children, but then you have to completely discount Goldberg’s research so does that mean that hoopified is cherry-picking from his own cite.
Also, I love how Hansen assumes that the low sample size results in an underestimate. If that one kid had not been gay, this study would have shown that homosexual parents result in NO homosexual children. With a low sample size, no statistical conclusions can be inferred.
So, you’d give equal attention to Buzz Aldrin and Bart Sibrel on the topic “Moon Landings: Truth or Hoax?”. Hokay…
Hardly anybody thinks much of yours, because of the various flaws that have been pointed out repeatedly and at length.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly is not an effective rebuttal.
That’s truly puzzling. This thread had gone on long enough that it ought to be clear that the standard talking points will be shot down in flames, and then mercilessly mocked if the advocate insists on trotting them out again and claiming that the shoot-down produced a mere flesh wound.
Attempting the risible “argument” that “black, er, gay people are as free as white, er, straight people to marry someone of the same race, er, of the opposite sex” is just fastening a “Kick Me” sign onto he own back.
How does allowing same-sex marriages affect heterosexual couples from marrying and “propagating the species?”
How would affording same-sex couples and their children the same rights and protections that heterosexual couples have be inhibiting the heterosexual’s ability to further “propagate the species?” And further, it seems almost shameful that people focus on things like gay marriage while there are AMPLE children in the system that need loving families. No propagation needed…