Same Sex Marriage - UK takes a step forward...

[_subgenius]

This conclusion, supported further by a plethora of research spanning decades, clearly demonstrates gender-linked differences in child-rearing that are protective for children. That is, men and women contribute differently to the healthy development of children. Children of parents who are sex-typed are more competent (Baumrind, 1982).

"social science research is almost never conclusive, yet in three decades of work as a social scientist, I know of few other bodies of data in which the weight of evidence is so decisively on one side of the issue: on the whole, for children, two-parent families are preferable to single-parent and step-families" (David Popenoe (1996) p. 176)

A study authored by Marissa Diener, (2002) at the University of Utah, demonstrated that babies (12 months old) who have a close relationship with their fathers seemed more stress resistant than those who did not. Babies who had secure relationships with their fathers used more coping strategies than those who did not. Her conclusion has fascinating implications: "there may be something unique to fathers that provides children with different opportunities to regulate their emotions" (Broughton, 2002 p. Al)

Clarke-Stewart (1980) reported differences in mothers' and fathers' play. Mothers tend to play more at the child's level. Mothers provide an opportunity to direct the play, to be in charge, to proceed at the child's pace. Fathers' play resembles a teacher-student relationship--apprenticeship of sorts. Fathers' play is more rough-and-tumble. In fact, the lack of this rough-and-tumble play emerges disproportionately in the backgrounds of boys who experience gender disorders. Additionally, Clarke-Stewart notes the benefits of this rough-and-tumble play have appeared in child development areas extending from the management of emotions to intellectual and academic achievement. Interestingly enough, fathers' play is related to the development of socially acceptable forms of behaviors and does not positively correlate with violence and aggression, but rather correlates with self-control. Children who "roughhouse" with their fathers quickly learn that biting, kicking and other forms of physical violence are not acceptable. Children learn how to recognize and manage highly charged emotions in the context of playing with their fathers, and such play provides children with opportunities to recognize and respond appropriately to emotions (Cromwell & Leper, 1994).

Alfred Masser, a psychiatrist at Northside Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, noted that more and more children who seek psychiatric help are suffering from father-hunger (1989). Blankenhorn (1995) concluded that father-hunger is the primary cause of the declining well-being of children in our society and is associated with social problems such as teenage pregnancy, child abuse, and domestic violence against women.

a significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbians had engaged in homosexual behavior (six of 25) when compared with those raised heterosexual mothers (none of the 20)...
Stacy and Biblarz (2001). Stacy, the former Streisand Chair of Gender Studies at the University of Southern California and currently at New York University

Lyons, Eisen (1999) concluded, "same-gender sexual orientation is significantly associated with each of the suicidality measures

In a study Lockhart (1994) found that 90% of lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their partners during the 12 months prior to the study. Thirty-one percent reported one or more incidents of physical abuse. Lie and Gentlewarrior (1991) found that more than half of the lesbians had been abused by a partner. Island and Letellier (1991) noted that the incidence of domestic violence among gay men was almost double that of the heterosexual population. In a national survey of lesbians published by Bradford, Ryan, and Rothhlum (1994) found that 75 percent of almost 2,000 respondents had received psychological care, many for long-term depression

In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871. (p. 657)


...and so on and so on

[_Res Ipsa]

And this is NARTH, an anti-gay fringe group of psychiatrists. They believe homosexuality is a mental disorder that can be cured. You might remember one of their (former) all-stars: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/0 ... 65142.html

your inability to refute the evidence posted at http://narth.com/docs/gendercomplementarity.html sums up your method and tactic on this argument.
Yes, the study appears on a website that believes LGBT is a disorder, but that does not invalidate the study. In fact, the plethora of references in that conclusion are beyond your refute...which is so deftly exemplified by your refusal to address them
don't be mad, you have been wrong before....and likely will be again.

Subgenius wants to pass of his link as a "study," and seeks to distance it from NARTH's anti-gay agenda. It's not a study. It's a law review article written by the LDS president of NARTH (now deceased). Where a literature review in a refereed journal is supposed help answer the question "what is the state of the science on topic X? law review articles can be, and often are, written to advocate a particular view." Where a literature review in a refereed journal goes through peer review by people in the relevant fields, law review articles are "cite checked" by second and third year law students, very few of whom are trained in the fields relevant to the topic at hand.

Byrd and NARTH have an established track record of misrepresenting other's research. See, e.g., http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/05/ma ... #more-2450 and http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10958958 I wouldn't trust Byrd' description of a study without checking it myself any more than I would trust Subgenius's

[_Res Ipsa]

Okay, I've read Brother Byrd's law review article and looked at some of his sources as well as the literature in general. The law review article is a cherry-picker's dream, with Brother Byrd bouncing from source to source and picking up any negative fact he can find (or at least facts he considers negative). You can do the work yourself, but here's a classic example:

Perhaps the most significant study to be published within last few years came from Stacy and Biblarz (2001). Stacy, the former Streisand Chair of Gender Studies at the University of Southern California and currently at New York University, conducted a meta-analysis that contradicted nearly 20 years of studies indicating that there were no differences between children reared by heterosexual versus homosexual couples. The findings of these authors include:
• Based on sex-typed cultural norms, daughters of lesbian mothers when compared with daughters of heterosexual mothers more frequently dress, play and behave in gender nonconforming ways.
• Sons of lesbian mothers behave in less traditionally masculine ways in terms of aggression and play. They are more apt to be more nurturing and affectionate than their counterparts in heterosexual families.
• One of the studies indicates that a significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbians had engaged in homosexual behavior (six of 25) when compared with those raised heterosexual mothers (none of the 20).
• Children reared by lesbian mothers are more likely to consider a homosexual relationship.
• Teenage and young adult girls reared by lesbian mothers were more sexually adventurous and less chaste than girls reared by heterosexual mothers. Sons were less sexually adventurous and more chaste than boys reared by heterosexual mothers.
Stacy and Biblarz (2001) reported,
the adolescent and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to have been more sexually adventurous and less chaste... in other words, once again, children (especially girls) raised by lesbians appear to depart from traditional gender-based norms while children raised by heterosexual mothers appear to conform to them." (p. 171)

Here's what Brother Byrd fails to tell you about perhaps the most significant study to be published within the last few years:

Given historic social prejudices against ho- mosexuality, the major issue deliberated by judges and policy makers has been whether children of lesbian and gay parents suffer higher levels of emotional and psychologi- cal harm. Unsurprisingly, therefore, children’s “self-esteem and psychological well-being” is a heavily researched domain. The third panel of Table 1 shows that these studies find no significant differences be- tween children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual mothers in anxiety, de- pression, self-esteem, and numerous other measures of social and psychological adjust- ment. The roughly equivalent level of psy- chological well-being between the two groups holds true in studies that test chil- dren directly, rely on parents’ reports, and solicit evaluations from teachers. The few significant differences found actually tend to favor children with lesbian mothers (see Table 1).12

Similarly, across studies, no relationship has been found between parental sexual orientation and measures of children’s cognitive ability. Moreover, to our knowledge no theories predict such a link. Thus far, no work has compared children’s long-term achievements in education, occupation, in- come, and other domains of life.13

The bottom panel of Table 2 demonstrates that evidence to date provides no support for those, like Wardle (1997), who claim that lesbian mothers suffer greater levels of psychological difficulties (depression, low self- esteem) than do heterosexual mothers. On the contrary, the few differences observed in the studies suggest that these lesbian mothers actually display somewhat higher levels of positive psychological resources.

The findings summarized in Tables 1 and 2 show that the “no differences” claim does receive strong empirical support in crucial domains. Lesbigay parents and their children in these studies display no differences from heterosexual counterparts in psychological well-being or cognitive functioning. Scores for lesbigay parenting styles and levels of investment in children are at least as “high” as those for heterosexual parents. Levels of closeness and quality of parent/child rela- tionships do not seem to differentiate directly by parental sexual orientation, but indirectly, by way of parental gender. Because every relevant study to date shows that pa- rental sexual orientation per se has no mea- surable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on children’s mental health or social adjustment, there is no evidentiary basis for considering parental sexual orien- tation in decisions about children’s “best in- terest.” In fact, given that children with lesbigay parents probably contend with a de- gree of social stigma, these similarities in child outcomes suggest the presence of com- pensatory processes in lesbigay-parent fami- lies. Exploring how these families help chil- dren cope with stigma might prove helpful to all kinds of families.

Less research has explored questions for which there are stronger theoretical grounds for expecting differences—children’s gender and sexual behavior and preferences. In fact, only two studies (R. Green et al. 1986; Tasker and Golombok 1997) generate much of the baseline evidence on potential connec- tions between parents’ and child’s sexual and gender identities. Evidence in these and the few other studies that focus on these variables does not support the “no differences” claim. Children with lesbigay parents appear less traditionally gender-typed and more likely to be open to homoerotic relation- ships. In addition, evidence suggests that parental gender and sexual identities interact to create distinctive family processes whose consequences for children have yet to be studied.

Thus, while we disagree with those who claim that there are no differences be- tween the children of heterosexual parents and children of lesbigay parents, we unequivocally endorse their conclusion that so- cial science research provides no grounds for taking sexual orientation into account in the political distribution of family rights and responsibilities.

And what do these author's conclude about the effect of same-sex marriage on children. We don't have to ask them -- they submitted an affidavit in one of the same-sex marriage cases.

35. There is no credible theory, however, that would reasonably lead scholars to predict harms to children parented by self-identified lesbians or gay men. In fact, there are no respectable social scientists conducting and publishing research in this area today who claim that there are reasons to predict harm to children from same sex parenting. The only contemporary published researchers who claim harm have been discredited and expelled from the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association. Paul Cameron, who is cited as an authority in the affidavit of Craig Hart, is the primary disreputable and discredited figure in this literature.

36. There is every reason to believe that children parented by same sex couples are at least as well parented, and their development is at least as successful, as children with heterosexual
parents. This is the case even though same-sex parents currently confront disadvantages deriving from the non-legal status of their relationship, the social invisibility of the second mother’s relationship and the social stigma with which both they and their children must contend. We conclude in our recently published article, therefore, that there must be compensatory processes in gay and lesbian parenting that enable those children to develop as well as they consistently have been shown to develop.

37. We undertook our analysis because we wanted to assess the relationship between theory and research on gender, sexual orientation and parenting outcomes. We assessed the extent to which the research reported differences and analyzed these in light of the relevant theories. As our article demonstrates, the studies did indeed report some differences, although authors of the studies often downplayed their significance and forfeited the opportunity to analyze these to address theoretical issues. Predictably, however, none of the studies, uncovered evidence of harms.

The entire affidavit is worth reading -- it basically debunks what Brother Byrd argues in his article. It also lays out why Sub's entire argument here is fallacious:

43. Professor Nock’s second argument is that we cannot predict what the impact of same sex marriage would be on lesbians, gay men and their children. Of course, it must be recognized that what is at issue before the court is not whether or not to allow lesbians and gays the right to be parents. They already are and will continue to be parents. Instead, the question at issue is the impact that legalizing marriage would have on their parenting, on their children, and on society in general. Should such parents be denied access to marriage and should their children be denied access to married parents?

44. Of course Professor Nock is literally correct to state that this is a hypothetical question (Para. 120) since gays and lesbians are currently being denied those rights. The question facing the court with which a social scientist might assist is whether extending equal rights to marriage would be more likely to have good or bad outcomes. Can any of the social science research that currently exists help the court arrive at a reasonable decision in this regard? We have full confidence that it can.

45. Paradoxically, Professor Nock has written extensively on the benefits of marriage to adults, children and to society as a whole. The mutual dependency of spouses in marriage, Professor Nock (1998) argues, is a powerful cohesive force that increases the socioeconomic achievement, social integration, and civic participation of members (his 1998 book focused mostly on men). However, in his affidavit, Professor Nock claims that it is purely speculative to infer that any of these benefits would be likely to apply to same sex parents and their children. His argument that the benefits of access to what he calls a "healthy, happy intact family" structure might not apply to same-sex parents and their children is inconsistent, illogical and unreasonable. (Paragraph 121)

46. There is no social scientific theory whatsoever that predicts that harm would accrue to society through the legalization of marriage for same sex couples. Nor does any credible social
science theory imply that the numerous benefits of marriage that Professor Nock repeatedly emphasizes and that the same-sex petitioners seek would not apply to such couples and their children. In fact, many of the economic, social, emotional and physical benefits of marriage that Professor Nock and others identify have nothing whatsoever to do with the gender of the participants.

Brother's Byrd's law review article is a cherry picked hit piece on his gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Sound familiar?

[Guest]

...

[_subgenius]

social scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children. In particular, see work by David Popenoe, Linda Waite, Maggie Gallagher, Sara McLanahan, David Blankenhorn, Paul Amato, and Alan Booth.

“If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children’s basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting. The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child.” - Sara McLahanan, a sociologist at Princeton University

Yale Child Study Center psychiatrist Kyle Pruett reports that children of IVF often ask their single or lesbian mothers about their fathers, asking their mothers questions like the following: “Mommy, what did you do with my daddy?” “Can I write him a letter?” “Has he ever seen me?” “Didn’t you like him? Didn’t he like me?” Elizabeth Marquardt reports that children of divorce often report similar feelings about their non-custodial parent, usually the father.

a recent study of father absence on girls found that girls who grew up apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family. This study, along with David Popenoe’s work, suggests that a father’s pheromones influence the biological development of his daughter - Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?. Child Development, 74, 801-821. David Popenoe. 1996. Life Without Father. Harvard

“Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles [supporting gay parenting] I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research.” - Steven Nock. 2001. Affidavit to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding Hedy Halpern et al. University of Virginia Sociology Department

“significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers… reported having a homoerotic relationship.” - Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz. 2001. “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review 66: 159-183

"marriages typically thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical ways and are attentive to the gendered needs and aspirations of their husband or wife." - University of Virginia Psychologist Mavis Hetherington

study of civil unions and marriages in Vermont suggests this is a very real concern. More than 79 percent of heterosexual married men and women, along with lesbians in civil unions, reported that they strongly valued sexual fidelity. Only about 50 percent of gay men in civil unions valued sexual fidelity
Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon. 2003. Civil Unions in the State of Vermont: A Report on the First Year. University of Vermont Department of Psychology.

Advocates often argue that they are being denied a civil right. There are two problems with this. First, laws have already been established defining certain conditions under which people may marry. The would-be spouse must be an adult, cannot already be married to another, cannot be closely related to the person he or she is marrying, and they must marry another human. In other words, restrictions have always existed. No one has ever been able to marry anyone simply because they loved them. Second, many civil rights leaders, including Rev. Jesse Jackson, have rejected the comparison between the fight for same-sex marriage and the fight for civil rights. As Jackson said, “Gays were never declared 3/5 human by the Constitution, and they never needed a Voting Rights Act.”
http://byfaithonline.com/the-cultural-a ... -marriage/

The modern gay-rights movement is all about securing the symbols of societal acceptance. It is a defensive strategy, one that attempts to define homosexuals as an officially sanctioned victim group afflicted with an inherent disability, a disadvantage that must be compensated for legislatively. But if “gay pride” means anything, it means not wanting, needing, or seeking any sort of acceptance but self-acceptance. Marriage is a social institution designed by heterosexuals for heterosexuals: why should gay people settle for their cast-off hand-me-downs?
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... -marriage/

[Guest]

...

[_subgenius]

social scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children. In particular, see work by David Popenoe, Linda Waite, Maggie Gallagher, Sara McLanahan, David Blankenhorn, Paul Amato, and Alan Booth.

Well that's all fine and dandy for statistics. But life for the individual often has little bearing to them. And its really the individual were talking about here.
What you fail to show in this statistic is all the unsettled individuals that normal society produces through hetero sexual unions.

they are the exception, not the rule. Though those individuals should not be ignored they should also not be given special privilege just because they failed to adjust to the virtues of society. A criminal who comes from a bad home should serve the same jail sentence as one who comes from a good home.

But really who gives a crap? Apparently a lot of people do ... But it all does boil down to governing powers need to just sit this one out. Even though it has been such a big thing in the past (and I'm talking about marriage) You know the Ironic thing , is that we probably have the female sex to blame for all the hubbub with so much emphasis on marriage.

I have always heard/read that most "progressives" and "liberals" consider the institution of marriage to be a bourgeois and sexist instrument for the oppression of women...the irony is that LGBT are so eager to be a part of that institution.

I myself have no feelings for the sanctity of the consessions granted to marriage by the government. The sanctity comes from the 2 individuals making the emotional contract.
And I as an individual do not feel I should have to respect the sanctity of some other peoples views on their union ... just because the government wants to say so.

Here we see the result of the desperate and "emotional" campaign that the LGBT are having to wage. The only argument they have ever been able to offer is that marriage is about two people in "love"...this is their desire...social validation of their "love"...nothing more and nothing less...LGBT melodrama at its most expensive.
History clearly illustrates that marriage has been about heterosexual relationships, procreative family structure, and a host of other issues that the LGBT has yet to be able to breach...despite an aggressive PR and propaganda campaign over the past 30+ years.

Its a 2 way street ... of imposeing sanctity on the individuals views as it sits now ... so lets just get rid of it in my opinion. If its about children ... then lets make it about children , not about sexual practices.

at which case the science, the tradition, the common sense, and the logic reveals that the best environment for children is married biological parents...though other structures may suffice, society is best served when it supports and encourages the best.
That is why there are so many qualifications for "rights".
Like a vision test for a driver license
Like a lack of felony convictions for a gun permit
Like a certain age for voting
etc...

[_Res Ipsa]

Before we dive into Sub's latest list of stuff cut and pasted from anti-gay websites, let's review the bidding:

The question is: Is extending marriage to same sex couples a step forward or a step back?

Here is the argument Sub is making:

Premise 1: Studies show that children, on average, do best when raised by a married biological mother and father.
Premise 2: Same sex couples cannot be a biological father and a biological mother.
Conclusion: Marriage should not be extended to same sex couples.

When you map out the premises, the fact that the conclusion has nothing to do with the premises leaps off the screen. He keeps trying to sell arguments against gays and lesbians being permitted to parent children with arguments for why same sex couples should be allowed to marry. This is a gaping hole in the logic of his argument. Right now, same sex couples can and do have children, through adoption, through surrogate mothers, and through IVF. The question is, would extending marriage to same-sex couples make things better or worse for children?

Sub cites a number of studies that show that, on the average, children raised by married, opposite sex parents have better outcomes than children raised by unmarried, opposite sex parents. If, as many of the studies and authors cited by Sub claim, marriage is a good thing for children being raised by same sex parents, what reason in the world do we have to believe that it would not do the same for children being raised by same-sex parents? The most immediate effect on children would be to give children currently being raised by unmarried same sex parents the opportunity to be raised by married parents. There is not a shred of evidence that allowing same sex couples who are raising children to marry would somehow make those children worse off.

On the other hand, extending marriage to same sex couples would not change the circumstances of any child not being raised by same sex parents. Same sex parents can now marry in my home state of Washington. Changing the law has no effect whatsoever on my family and children. Ironically, only if married opposite sex parents make the conscious decision to denigrate their own marriages (thus harming their own children) is there any means by which extending marriage to same sex couples could possibly be detrimental to children.

Unless Sub is will to grant the government the power to: (1) determine the "best" way to raise a child; and (2) prevent everyone who doesn't match up to that criteria from raising children (i.e., forced sterilization or confiscation of children), then his argument is a giant red herring (and quite surprising coming from a guy who is anti-government in almost every other area.)

The bottom line is, Sub is singling out same sex parents and subjecting them to a standard that doesn't apply to any other group of any kind on the planet: requiring them to conform to some group determined standard of child raising before they can get married. He also claims that marriage is essential for a child's well being, but then turns around and denies children of same sex parents the opportunity to be raised by married parents. It's not only bad logic -- it's hypocritical.

This will be the last time I'm going to respond to whatever Sub manages to copy and paste off some anti-gay website. Unless he comes up with a valid form of argument, the authority he is quoting doesn't logically lead to the conclusion he's trying to draw.

So, let's go through yet another set of references. To date, Sub has not produced a shred of evidence that extending marriage to gays would be harmful to children in any way. Moreover, despite this claim he made:

The simple example is how same-sex relationships currently impact family law combined with the fact that the overwhelming majority of studies that conclude with same sex couples being less effective and less beneficial for a child when compared to the child's biological parents.

He hasn't come up with a single study that shows, based on an apples to apples comparison, that same sex couples are less effective or beneficial for a child when compared to biological parents. What he does is play hide the ball. He cherry picks from studies that compare married biological parents to all gays and lesbians, or bio parents to single-parent families, or bio parents to divorced and remarried parents, or married bio parents to unmarried bio parents, and then simply asserts these results or factoids from prove that same sex parents are less beneficial than opposite sex parents. What he ignores is that, when evaluated on an apples to apples basis -- gay single parents to straight single parents, cohabiting gays to cohabiting straights -- there is no evidence of difference in outcomes for children.

So, let's look at the new batch:

social scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children. In particular, see work by David Popenoe, Linda Waite, Maggie Gallagher, Sara McLanahan, David Blankenhorn, Paul Amato, and Alan Booth.

To make this statement both accurate and non-deceptive, we have to change it to: "social scientific evidence indicates that the average intact married family is better than single-parent families, cohabiting parent families, and remarried after divorced families But what do these authors say about the effect of extending marriage to same-sex couples on children:

David Popenoe: Popenoe has written books arguing that fathers are essential in the development of a child. (This doesn't seem to be a generally accepted position in the sociological literature.) The problem is that the research he relies on comes from comparisons of intact families with divorced families and cohabiting families. Nowhere could I find him examining data comparing same sex couples raising children with opposite sex couples raising children. He is also a very strong proponent of marriage as a benefit both to the parents and to children. I spent some time looking, but couldn't find anything from him that addresses same sex marriage. He co-founded the annual State of Our Unions Report, published by The National Marriage Project and the Institute for American Values. It looks like he's now retired from the board, but in the decade or so he directed production of the report, the report never took a stand on same sex marriage.

Linda Waite: She is a sociologist who co-wrote a book on marriage with Maggie Gallagher. Here is an interview with the two of them. Here's what Waite had to say about same sex marriage"

“Here’s the thing,” Gallagher says, folding her hands in her lap. “Linda is a liberal and I’m a conservative. We both believe that marriage has been polarized. It has become an ideological construct. And that doesn’t make any sense.”

“My agenda is a little bit different than hers,” Waite says. “I’m an academic researcher, and it seems to me that we have to pay attention to the evidence; I’m very focused on evidence and data. I think the evidence shows that marriage is good for people. And I think that a lot of the political argument around marriage is ignoring the evidence. It’s just wrong. I think we shouldn’t do that; I think we should pay attention to what the facts are.”

...

“Not to put a wedge between you both,” I say, smiling at Waite, “but your book states that you are pro-gay marriage and Gallagher is anti.”

Waite holds my gaze. “That’s putting it too strongly,” she says. “I don’t have a political agenda. But we have no evidence on gay marriage and there’s no research on long-term gay couples. Given that we don’t know anything, my guess is theoretical. If you have a gay marriage that’s socially supported, it could provide the same benefits as heterosexual marriage.”

So, Waite does not agree that opposite sex marriage benefits children more than same sex marriage would.

Maggie Gallagher: Not a sociologist. She has a degree in religious studies. She's also the former president of the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage.

Sara McLanahan: Sociologist who studied single parent families. I could not find any publication in which she addresses same-sex marriage.

David Blankenhorn: Blankenhorn has a B.A. in Social Studies and a masters in Comparative Social History. He is the founder and president of the Institute for American Values and testified as an expert witness in support of Proposition 8 in California. But he wrote an important Op-Ed in the New York Times last summer: How My View On Gay Marriage Changed He explains how, even though his belief is that opposite sex marriage is best for children, he has switched from opposing to supporting gay marriage. He has adopted the view that, since opposite-sex marriage is good for children, same sex marriage can have the same benefits for children being raised by gay parents.

Paul Amato: He is a Professor of Family Sociology. He published a paper in response to last year's study by Regnerus. What does he have to say about same sex marriage?

First, as noted earlier, most of the young adults with gay or lesbian parents in the New Family Structures Survey also experienced divorce as children. Consequently, it is likely that many of the disadvantages reported by these offspring were due to marital disruptions that preceded (or coincided with) the time when their parents come out as gay or lesbian. In other words, these disadvantages may be due to the failed heterosexual marriages of parents rather than the sexual orientations of parents. To understand the implications of being raised from birth by two same-sex parents, researchers need to study chil- dren born through sperm donation or surrogacy. Yet we know relatively little about the newest generation of planned chil- dren with same-sex parents. A clear appreciation of how well these children are faring will require a new generation of studies—studies with representative samples and enough statistical power to reach meaningful conclusions.

Fourth, irrespective of whether same-sex marriage continues to gain legal recognition, the number of children raised by gay and lesbian parents is likely to increase in the future. Under these circumstances, it is reasonable to ask whether allowing same-sex parents to marry might be beneficial to these children. Indeed, children with gay and lesbian parents may report certain disadvantages in young adulthood at least partly because their parents were not allowed to marry. A large research literature suggests that marriage—at least among heterosexual couples—is good for children (e.g., Brown, 2004). In addition to conferring many social and legal benefits on these families, marriage may help to stabilize same-sex unions. And research clearly shows that instability in parents’ lives is harmful to children (Cherlin, 2009). From a civil rights perspective, one could argue that all children should have the right to be raised by married parents.

Alan Booth: He's a sociologist. He has studied the effect on family instability on children and differences between married parents and co-habiting parents. I could not locate anything that discussed his view of same sex v. opposite sex marriage.

So, there is the list of authors. Only Gallagher, who is not a sociologist, states that same sex marriage is inferior to opposite sex marriage when it comes to parenting. Blankenhorn has moved away from his opposition to same sex marriage. All the rest either take the position that there is no evidence that same sex married parents are inferior in some way to opposite sex married parents or are silent on the subject.

[to be continued]

[_Res Ipsa]

On to Sub's latest set of quotations:

Yale Child Study Center psychiatrist Kyle Pruett reports that children of IVF often ask their single or lesbian mothers about their fathers, asking their mothers questions like the following: “Mommy, what did you do with my daddy?” “Can I write him a letter?” “Has he ever seen me?” “Didn’t you like him? Didn’t he like me?” Elizabeth Marquardt reports that children of divorce often report similar feelings about their non-custodial parent, usually the father.

Kyle Pruett is sick and tired of people cherry picking sentences out of his writings and using them to misrepresent his positions. Several years ago, James Dobson wrote an article in Time Magazine criticizing Mary Cheney and her partner for decided to raise a child. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 85,00.html He did just what Sub did here: cherry picked a quote to make it look like he believed that same sex parenting would be harmful to children. Here is Pruett's response:

Dr. Dobson, I was startled and disappointed to see my work referenced in the current Time Magazine piece in which you opined that social science, such as mine, supports your convictions opposing lesbian and gay parenthood. I write now to insist that you not quote from my research in your media campaigns, personal or corporate, without previously securing my permission. You cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes. This practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles. There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support such conclusions. On page 134 of the book you cite in your piece, I wrote, “What we do know is that there is no reason for concern about the development or psychological competence of children living with gay fathers. It is love that binds relationships, not sex.” Kyle Pruett, M.D. Yale School of Medicine

http://www.truthwinsout.org/pressrelease/2006/12/38/

And Elizabeth Marquardt? Her recent article on why she supports same sex marriage pretty much speaks for itself. http://familyscholars.org/2012/12/24/White House ... ell-being/

a recent study of father absence on girls found that girls who grew up apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family. This study, along with David Popenoe’s work, suggests that a father’s pheromones influence the biological development of his daughter - Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?. Child Development, 74, 801-821. David Popenoe. 1996. Life Without Father. Harvard

I discussed Popenoe upthread. This is an article that addresses girls from broken families. It does not address at all the situation where two lesbian parents raise a child from birth.

“Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles [supporting gay parenting] I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research.” - Steven Nock. 2001. Affidavit to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding Hedy Halpern et al. University of Virginia Sociology Department

I already posted a lengthy affidavit responding to Nock upthread. His opinion is certainly not representative of experts in the field.

“significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers… reported having a homoerotic relationship.” - Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz. 2001. “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review 66: 159-183

Unless you're a homophobe, it's hard to see the point. I discussed this study upthread. It is actually reporting on the results of a single study with a small sample (which Nock would describe as worthless....). It also found that girls raised by lesbians were no more likely to self-identify as lesbian or bisexual than children raised by straight women.

marriages typically thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical ways and are attentive to the gendered needs and aspirations of their husband or wife." - University of Virginia Psychologist Mavis Hetherington

This is a sentence from a book Hetherington co-authored that is about divorce. I could find nothing from her addressing same sex marriage.

study of civil unions and marriages in Vermont suggests this is a very real concern. More than 79 percent of heterosexual married men and women, along with lesbians in civil unions, reported that they strongly valued sexual fidelity. Only about 50 percent of gay men in civil unions valued sexual fidelity
Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon. 2003. Civil Unions in the State of Vermont: A Report on the First Year. University of Vermont Department of Psychology.

This one is interesting. I couldn't find a copy of the first-year study that wasn't behind a paywall. The same authors did a follow up study after three years. http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~rothblum/doc ... low-Up.pdf Here's what they found:

Same-
sex couples not in civil unions were more likely to have ended their relationships than same-sex couples in civil unions or het­erosexual married couples.

So, some indication of increased stability.

[/quote]Of interest, we found that same-sex couples reported more positive relationship quality and less conflict than heterosexual married couples on nearly all of the measures included in the study. This result is similar to results found in some prior studies of same-sex couples. For example, Kurdek’s (2004) longitudinal research comparing same-sex cou­ ples in cohabiting relationships and heterosexual married couples over time used a wide variety of relationship measures, including psychological adjustment, personality traits, relationship styles, conflict resolution, and social support. Kurdek concluded that same-sex couples fared better than heterosexual married couples on 76% of all variables. Gottman et al. (2003), in a study of physiological and behavioral observations of couples in a labora­ tory, found that same-sex couples showed less negative affect, belligerence, whining, and fear/tension and showed greater affec­ tion, humor, and joy/excitement than the heterosexual married couples.[/quote] So, nothing intrinsically inferior about same sex couples.

Advocates often argue that they are being denied a civil right. There are two problems with this. First, laws have already been established defining certain conditions under which people may marry. The would-be spouse must be an adult, cannot already be married to another, cannot be closely related to the person he or she is marrying, and they must marry another human. In other words, restrictions have always existed. No one has ever been able to marry anyone simply because they loved them. Second, many civil rights leaders, including Rev. Jesse Jackson, have rejected the comparison between the fight for same-sex marriage and the fight for civil rights. As Jackson said, “Gays were never declared 3/5 human by the Constitution, and they never needed a Voting Rights Act.”
http://byfaithonline.com/the-cultural-a ... -marriage/

First, notion that traditional laws Trump civil rights is nonsense. Otherwise, we'd still own slaves, women wouldn't be able to vote, interracial marriage wouldn't exist, etc. The author confuses what has been done in the past with what is the right thing to do. Second, when you want to know why a same sex couple wants to marry, go ask them. Don't ask a church. You'll find that same sex couples want to get married for the same reasons opposite sex couples do. Why should that be such a surprise? And whether Jesse Jackson likes it or not, the battles for racial equality and marriage equality are very similar. I'm sorry that Jackson can't acknowledge and stick up for the Matthew Shepard's of the world.

The modern gay-rights movement is all about securing the symbols of societal acceptance. It is a defensive strategy, one that attempts to define homosexuals as an officially sanctioned victim group afflicted with an inherent disability, a disadvantage that must be compensated for legislatively. But if “gay pride” means anything, it means not wanting, needing, or seeking any sort of acceptance but self-acceptance. Marriage is a social institution designed by heterosexuals for heterosexuals: why should gay people settle for their cast-off hand-me-downs?
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... -marriage/

This is why you don't go to the American Conservative to find out what GLBT folks want and why they want it.

So, I've given Sub lots of time and space to back up his assertions about the science. He hasn't even come close. Instead, he uses the same tactic we see with young earth creationists -- quote mine, cherry pick, ignore context. Unless I see something different, I'm content to let him cut and paste his little heart out.

[_subgenius]

according to Brad Hudson's posts, so far, we can either side with informed science and agree that married biological parents are the best for children or we can rely on the cynical and scientifically contrarian posts which support putting children in a potentially detrimental position just to prove a political point.

BH's logic and reasoning on this matter is simple and to the point...
it clearly states that while "the science" has definitively concluded that married biological parents are the best for children when compared to unmarried parents, divorced parents, single parents, grandparents, step-parents, adoptive parents, foster homes, orphanages, homelessness, no parents, etc...yet surely LGBT parents are as good as married biological parents. Somehow the LGBT has an advantage over all these other parenting circumstances and can easily be "as good as" what has been proven to be the best.
Ignore the fact that studies have already concluded that LGBT parents are not "as good"...ignore the facts that LGBT parents are equated with many of these other parent conditions already deemed "not as good"...indeed...BH's superior criticisms and dissections have all but disassembled years of countless professional and verified studies - mostly by way of criticizing the source...such as claiming that since NARTH posted it on their website and NARTH does not agree with my position on homosexuality...must be wrong! must be bias!
However, opinion posted on LGBT website that agrees with my position...not bias! can not be wrong!

That being said...there are many studies that i have cited, many opinions and arguments that i have referenced, and the objective consensus is clear and consistent....and justifies my original claim.