I read a recent OpEd column in your paper by Pastor Bob Emrich titled “Marriage: society’s bond with children.” As a straight, Christian adoptive mother and a child and family therapist, I was compelled to respond.
This article stated that it is the marriage of the biological parents that best guarantees a child’s sense of connection with their family and with society in general. This simply isn’t true. My husband and I adopted our daughter at 3 days of age, straight from the hospital where her overwhelmed mother made a conscious decision not to take her home the day before. Rather, she made an adoption plan. The other details are not important right now, but one thing that can be said for certain is that neither of my daughter’s biological parents were in any way prepared to adequately provide for her physical or emotional needs.
I hope we can all agree that for the countless adoptive families in the state of Maine and beyond, “biology” really doesn’t matter all that much when it comes to responsibly parenting children.
It seems likely to me that the real agenda of Mr. Emrich’s piece was an attempt to purport that only straight parents ought to be raising children. The research that I have read indicates that, and this is in accordance with the American Psychological Association back in 2004, “There is no scientific data that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit to parent on the basis of their sexual orientation … on the contrary, results of this research suggest that gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to provide supportive and healthy home environments as are heterosexual parents.”
I even read one study in my professional counseling journal last week suggesting that children raised in same-sex households are actually “outperforming” their peers academically. In all other areas, according to many studies, there seems to be no difference. These kids are just as happy, healthy, socially involved, spiritually involved, etc., as their peers who are raised by heterosexual parents. In addition, the APA states that “there is no evidence that children of gay or lesbian couples are confused about their gender identity, either in childhood or later, in adulthood, or that they are more likely to be homosexual.”
It’s worth restating that this isn’t my personal agenda, as I’ve been a married, straight, Christian woman for quite some time. It is my faith that prohibits me from condemning people … and I could not in good conscience work toward impeding people who are attempting to provide a safe, committed, loving home life for their children.
The healthiest bonds between society and children are defined by mutual respect, acceptance and developmental understanding, along with the commitment of time and resources. Similarly, in my experience and in my 20 years of professional practice, I find that the strongest bonds between parents and children have most of those same characteristics, with the addition of unconditional love and devotion, pure and simple. If kids are loved this way and are healthy and happy in their homes, whether they are parented by same-sex parents or not, shouldn’t that be celebrated and protected?
This November, I will be voting “Yes” to allow marriage licenses for same-sex couples here in Maine. There is simply no empirically based, socially scientific argument supporting its opposition. And as far as abiding by my faith? Who am I to judge the quality and integrity of the love two people have for one another? I am not perfect, I am not God. However, Christ did clearly say that the two greatest commandments of our faith are: Love your God with all your heart, soul and mind and love your neighbor as you love yourself.”
I will not be a part of denying the right of same-sex couples (many of whom also are raising children) to make a lifelong commitment of love and devotion to one another. No child should ever have to say “my parents aren’t allowed to get married.”
Amy Riddell, LCPC, is a married mother of two, and a practicing child and adolescent clinical counselor in Bar Harbor, Maine.
You poor misguided Angel. We will all pray for you.
Huh? I have some candidates for others who need prayers.
The American Psychological Association has been off its rocker for a very long time–
By “straight” does Ms. Riddell mean standing tall in the face of things or” straight” whatever in cards, or is she referring to the traditionally married couples?
So any empirical data or evidence to show that the APA is or “has been off its rocker for a very long time”?
Off its rocker? Prove it. Seems more like you don’t like what the experts have to say so you just dismiss them baselessly.
Wolfndeer, about 15 years ago the APA published a study that essentially stated that Adult males having sex with adolescent boys did the children more good than harm. After a public outcry the study was found to be flawed and politically based for support of the Man-Boy Love Association. It damaged the reputation of the APA and the University of Pennsylvania where the paper was produced. Just because it’s in the APA, doesn’t mean it’s a valid or reasonable study.
Don’t lie and/or skew the facts. They didn’t write or conduct the study. It said the relationships aren’t always damaging — it didn’t say they are always more good than harm. That’s a lie you made up. They reiterated their position that they are fully against child abuse and requested independent evaluation of the study — which is the entire purpose of peer-reviewed journals. Putting a study in a journal isn’t the same thing as holding an official positions either.
Further, this has nothing to do with homosexuality. Pedophilia and homosexuality are obviously not the same thing.
I find your misinformation and insinuations disgusting. You along with 4life still have offered no truthful proof that the APA “has been off its rocker for a very long time”. All you have are lazy ad hominem attacks. You can’t fight the merits of the argument, so you seek to skew and misconstrue the events from the past for your political purposes.
You can prove anything by starting the statement with “essentially,” I guess.
“Essentially stated.” What does that mean? What is this study? What exactly (not essentially) did it say?
I think that once NAMBLA is brought up, the conversation has derailed and is leading to a stupid ol’ train wreck.
One debatable case. Got any others?
“Off its rocker” = “I don’t agree with them.”
“Reality isn’t on my side so I’ll just create a new one”
As asked elsewhere, what are your creds to determine that the APA is “off it’s rocker”? Just because they come to valid conclusions you don’t agree with? How do you really fell about that? I can refer you to some qualified APA members if you’re still not comfortable with that.
Amy, yours is the best response to Pastor Bob’s article that I have read, and I thank you for sharing your thoughts and insight. I have a few friends who are lesbian and raising their children in a same sex home, and their children are some of the most emotionally healthy, nonjudgemental, and happy children I know. What matters more than anything, as you stated, is receiving unconditional love and devotion. As the song says… All it takes is Love.. and it is none of society’s business whether that love is shared by two men, two woman, or a man and woman.
Immorality is marching strong in the USA. Sad. Very sad.
Couldn’t agree with you more EJ. It is shameful all those divorced single parent families we have in the United States.
Mere moral disapproval is no basis for laws in this country. You don’t get to hinder people with the law simply because you don’t like them — that’s un-American.
So is judging others apparently.
What is Immoral is pushing to have abortions be illegal, then trying to take away welfare that would support those babies and there families. Then on top of that saying that you have to be straight to adopt. That is immoral is trying to prevent children going to loving want to be parents.
Abortion is murder. Welfare is supposed to be a hand up, not a hand out.
I’ve often said, for every abortion blaocked, the blockers should adopt the uncared for child–personally.
I would almost support abortion on demand if tubal ligation was a mandatory part of the procedure.
What if the health of the mother is fatally compromised by the fact of having a child inside her? What if the abortion is for medical reasons? Would you rather have the death of the mother, or the death of the child. Because in these crucial medical circumstances and decisions, the law should not be involved. It is a personal choice. I agree, it should not be used as a form of birth control. But take this scenario. This couple have been trying to have a child for a long time. The woman’s doctors did not tell her that she would be putting herself at risk if she were to conceive until she was already pregnant. What would happen. Do you think the father would want to choose between his unborn child or the love of his life.
What if the woman in question was raped. Do you think she would want to have a reminder of what happened growing inside her? There are a hundred different scenarios, possibilities and combinations that could make a mother to be, want or need an abortion. And you want to take that away? You don’t plan on being pregnant if you knew “everything was protected” during the “moment”. Saying oops and realizing you are not ready to have a child in this world. KNowing you made a mistake every day of your life. Knowing you have achild out there that’s yours and cursing yourself for not being able to take care of it. Or knowing that tyou can not take care of the child that is in front of you. Cooing and looking at you with an unconditional love. Knowing you probably don’t deserve it.
In any case, abortion is sad. The death of a future child is, I agree, painful. But so is letting it go to someone else. SO is seeing disappointment in your child’s eyes. It’s enough to tear you apart.
What if…… What if……
The AMA came out years ago with a statement that there is never been a situation where the mother’s life was in jeopardy that would constitute the need for an abortion. Both the mother and child can be handled separately.
And I have a wonderful nephew as a result of a rape.
All God’s creations need to be cherished. And no one has the right to override God.
I beg to differ with you on one point. My mother died during pregnancy do to that pregnancy and after being told by doctors not to have another child. Granted, this was in the 50’s. Birth control was not always reliable and to my mother abortion was not an option. Maybe today they could have kept them both alive. (they both died.) But considering the weakness of her heart I wouldn’t bet on it.
The weak heart factor changes the scenario. Still, in today’s hospitals, I would dare say that both could be saved. It’s still not an excuse for an abortion, in my opinion.
She agreed with you. And died for her belief. From what I have been told by relatives about her health I doubt if she could have been saved even today. I cannot know this personally since I was 2 at the time.
Prejudice is immoral, and yes, you demonstrate that it is still marching strong in parts of the U.S. Fortunately, most Americans are maturing beyond those old prejudices that you demonstrate.
It has nothing to do with maturity, and everything to do with morality. The trouble is that the definition of morality has been changed in order to fit each persons desires, regardless of the true meaning of morality. Moral relativity has replaced morality in order for the sinners to live in their sins without fear of guilt or shame. They scream judgment and prejudice about those that they are prejudiced against and severely judgmental toward.
Immorality is on the march in America. If you can’t see that, then you’re living with your eyes wide shut.
Of course morality is relative. One person can grow up viewing something as moral and another person can view that same thing as immoral. The law is not based on “morals”, they are based on provable fact and legal precedent. Please provide one legal reason why same sex marriage sould be illegal. And by legal reason, I mean some section of the US Constitution that gives a reason as to why same sex marriage should be illegal.
Morality is, indeed, related to maturity. The immature don’t really understand morality — children think it is merely about black and white “rules.” If and when you ever mature, you will see that compassion, loving-kindness, justice, and mercy must be the foundation upon which the rules rest.
What does the Lord require of you? To act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8)
I hope that some day you will mature beyond your prejudice.
If you’re actually saying that you hope that I will someday think the same as you, it ain’t gonna happen. Morals were set in place by God. His morals haven’t changed. Man, however, in his attempt to live as he pleases, made morals relative. Man’s morals change with the wind.
Just because someone want’s to do whatever they please doesn’t make it right, unless they justify their actions by changing the rules. That’s what so many on here do day after day. They live by their own convoluted rules, and get mad at those of us that point out the error or their ways. Typical guilty reaction.
The gay lifestyle is wrong, although they have a right to choose to live that way. But their immoral choice should not be allowed to intrude into mainstream society and traditions.
Really? Because my morals come from a basic respect from my fellow human beings.
“The gay lifestyle is wrong, although they have a right to choose to live that way. But their immoral choice should not be allowed to intrude into mainstream society and traditions.”
That’s nice, now show me scientific evidence that shows how homosexuality is immoral. Guess what, laws aren’t based on what you “feel” is right or wrong, they are based on what can be proven to be right and wrong.
But, but. Allegedly God given morals have suppressed (or worse) blacks (or non-whites in general), women, “heretics” (those who didn’t toe the state/church line), etc. I assume that you’re Protestant. You should thank God that at least some “herretics” were successful in combating church policies and even misguided morals,
You’re referring to the twists that man has put on God’s morals.
And which might those be? Abolition of slavery? Respect and legal status of women? Non-persecution of Jews? The rise of Protestantism (you are Protestant, aren’t you)?
So, only “mainstream society” has any morals? Sounds like a theocracy which does not exist in this country.
People who claim to live their lives by the Bible also “change the rules” to match “their own convoluted rules.” There are TONS of things the Bible believers seem to skip out on, divorce, which has been mentioned here, is among the smaller things. What I find most of the time is those people who insist on quoting the Bible and telling everyone else they are wrong if they don’t live by it, either haven’t read it thoroughly, skip out on parts of it themselves, or do both. For example, I hope you aren’t female. “1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man, she must be quiet.” If you are female, you better learn your place. And if you aren’t, I hope you follow this Bible teaching and tell any woman in your life to shut up and back off. We wouldn’t want women to be running willy nilly all over the place giving their opinions, thoughts or teaching anyone anything. The Bible says it is wrong and you must follow what it says…
Morals are very time and culture dependent. Also depends on who’s in power.
So where is your campaign against divorce? Against those who openly live in “sin” without being married? Against drunkenness? Against working on Sunday? The Bible is much clearer about these things then homosexuality but you don’t do anything about those things. Instead, you fixate on what two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom.
Now you’re claiming to know what I do outside of these comment threads. Interesting. I just happen to speak out about a lot of subjects, but the BDN is locked into the abortion and SSM mindset, so there’s not a lot of other things to comment about.
By the way, the only Commandment that Jesus didn’t address was about keeping the Sabbath holy. So, as for working on Sunday, who really cares?
The owners of Hobby Lobby and Chic Fila (sp?) do and they’re good Christians.
Yes, judging and condemning others is so immoral and is indeed against Christ’s teaching. And aren’t you afraid that God will judge for allowing this society to embrace divorce and you are doing nothing about that. Christ is VERY clear about divorce. How can you sit back and not try to “save” these people from the fires of hell-the same fires that you believe homosexual people will face?
Christ was in the judging business. He told so many to, “go and sin no more”. If that’s not judgmental, then what is. Also, He constantly judged the evil doings of the Pharisees.
By the way, divorce does not mean an eternity in the “fires of hell”. Neither is homosexuality, as long as one turns away from the lifestyle and asks for forgiveness.
How does one turn away from divorce? I know, the Catholic Church has an answer for that one: annulment.
Jesus has an answer for that: forgiveness.
An eloquent, moving contribution, Amy, sensitive and compelling. Thanks so much. I too have close friends who, as lesbians, are raising children in a healthy nurturing environment. I always wonder about the reaction of those who, like Pastor Bob and EJ Parsons once again, should any of their family members–children above all- turn out to be homosexual. It’s so easy to damn others who, contrary to both of these non-scientists, didn’t choose their orientation. In all likelihood, they’d throw their deviant kids out of their homes and out of their lives. But sometimes even the most hate-filled like these two holier than thou Christians can have a change a heart when the situation hits home. Don’t count on it, however.
Hearty agreement. I predict if any kids in those families turned out to be homosexual, they’d be shipped off to one of those reprogramming/brainwashing institutions like the one run by Michelle Bachmann’s husband.
Amy, I would ask…why are children so important in a relationship? It seems to me that if folks really wanted to have children, they would look for the appropriate spouses to have children. Granted there are heterosexual couples that for one reason or another can not have children and adopt. The difference is that they are at least equipped to hope for a child. Partners of the same sex are not equipped for that hope. Why are we risking the lives of children on same sex partners who aren’t really vested in the hope of having children? This all appears very vain and as a clinician you ought to know better!
Pastor Bob was correct the optimal environment for children is with their biological parents. When that fails, then it becomes a home with a Mom and Dad. If that fails than maybe a home with same sex couples followed by single parents. There are other optimal considerations as variables such as race, creed, income and culture. In the end you are correct about unconditional love and devotion but there are no guarantees in life.
Personally, I don’t feel that same sex parents raising children is worth the risk of the welfare of children no more than Farmer Brown marrying his cow has any less compassion for raising children. If couples want children, they should be in a relationship where they can at least have the hope of having children.
Note I have left the whole same sex marriage out of the opinion. These are two separate issues however intermingled and tied together.
“Pastor Bob was correct the optimal environment for children is with their biological parents.” – So a child would be better off living with their abusive, biological parents rather than a loving, stable same sex couple? After all, the abusive parents are their biological parents.
“Personally, I don’t feel that same sex parents raising children is worth the risk of the welfare of children no more than Farmer Brown marrying his cow has any less compassion for raising children. ” What risk? Did you miss the part in the article that talked about the studies that show children raised by same sex couples are no different that children raised by opposite sex couples? If it is not “worth the risk of the welfare of the children” to have them raised by same sex couples, then it is not “worth the risk” to have them raised by opposite sex couples.
“If couples want children, they should be in a relationship where they can at least have the hope of having children.”
What about couples where one or both partners are infirtile? There is no “hope” of being able to biologically have children? By your logic, they should not be able to adopt.
Funny because all the evidence is against you. No vested interest or hope in children? That’s a bunch of bull. What risks? More bull.
Good Lord.
Too much to address at once, but I’ll just say that limiting adoption to those who “can at least have the hope of having children” sounds plain ridiculous.
Yeah, but you raised the fallacious (and crude) Farmer Brown (non) analogy. And there are plenty of hetero couples who can’t have children yet who want them. Are denying them the opportunity also? Once again, the conservative side totally ignores the 10-15% of hetero couples who can’t have children.
Yes there are hetro couples who find the can’t have children after they marry, but few know beforehand. Where does the 10-15% statistic come from?
IVF is wrong in every situation – because there are plenty of orphans who deserve a second chance in a good home.
And you ignore that many heterosexual couples who choose to marry are beyond childbearing age (specifically post-menopausal women) do indeed know they are unable to reproduce. The majority of these couples are also beyond the age limit of being adopters. Do we disallow them from civil marriage …… no, there is no requirement for procreation in civil marriage.
So people should choose spouses based on potential to procreate? There are a lot of sterile individuals who would end up pretty lonely and I bet would disagree with you. And quite frankly, same sex couples are equipped to have children, just not with each other. So technically, they have followed your “advice.” You have also pretty much just stated that any children these types of couples may have adopted are doomed from the start. I am sure an adopted child who has a giving and loving family would love for you to tell them that their lives are less meaningful in some ways because their parents aren’t their biological parents.
This garbage about “optimal environment” is just that, garbage. What matters is whether or not the child is wanted, loved and treated properly. Biological parents do not automatically make them parents. They could strictly be the egg and sperm donors who produced a child they could care less about. “Race, creed, income and culture”? What difference do any of these things make? How does any of those things make something “optimal?” The only thing this sentence says to me is that you are a racist and a bigot (and so is Pastor Bob). I’d be curious to see what your thoughts are on interracial marriage that results in children or people who don’t make 6 figures a year having children. I can probably guess though.
It is interesting to see you put single parents after same sex couples. Not that it matters, it is equally as insulting. If a child has one, or both parents die, and is raised in a single family home, I would love to see you explain to that child that their childhood was ruined and their welfare is in danger. Single parenting isn’t always done by choice (although I don’t think that matters as long as the child is cared for properly). To assume that the welfare of a child is subpar based on this fact is ridiculous. A parent does not love a child any less or provide less because of a change either in or out of their control.
All couples who WANT children, as well as single adults who WANT children contain the “hope of having children.” “Race, creed, income, culture,” sexual orientation and whatever other quality you can find to discriminate with doesn’t change this.
Amy says, “Who am I to judge the quality and integrity
of the love two people have for one another? I am not perfect, I am not
God.”
She is right, she is not God, but if not being perfect means we cannot uphold
God’s clearly stated values who is? As Edmund Burke stated many years ago All
that is needed for evil to triumph is for good people (NOTE not perfect people)
to do nothing.
The New Testament is full of verses about the need to challenge wrong behaviour,
including sexual immorality, firstly our own and then that of others.
The only perfect Person to ever live was our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ –
there will never be another – unless imperfect people at least do their best to
hold back evil nobody will.
As for the evidence about same-sex parenting – think again – most has been done
by lesbians, the fox in charge of the Hen house!!! Read the recent research
done by Mark Regnerus and see the true facts.
Interesting research by Mark Regnerus. However I draw slightly different conclusions.
I believe that children raised in a STABLE Gay or lesbian relationship are generally much better off than those in a single parent household. Most of the studies that find children raised by gay parents have carefully chosen the homes analyzed in the studies. And that is precisely why the results of those studies are also suspect.
The reality is that homosexual relationships are generally less stable than heterosexual relationships. Notice the small number of such stable homosexual relationships in Mr Regnerus’s data. The major deficiency cited by critics of his study. And just as marriage, or relationships period, often fail for heterosexuals, there is no convincing argument that marriage will somehow make homosexual relationships more stable as a group. In fact, since gays and lesbians are more likely to be progressive socially they are even less likely as a group to take life long commitment to a relationship, including marriage, as important and to think of “moving on” when problems occur in the relationship as both acceptable and even desirable.
And what Mark Regnerus study really points out is the negative effects on children of broken families period.
“of the studies that find children raised by gay parents have carefully chosen the homes analyzed in the studies.”
Don’t lie. You don’t have proof of that.
And if you do believe gay relationships are less stable, then why would you add to the choir of voices that work against their attempts at becoming more stable? Wouldn’t the right to marry add to that stability?
In order to study STABLE long term gay households they had to carefully choose the homes studied.
What part of STABLE do you not understand. I agree that STABLE gay homes probably are as good at raising children as STABLE heterosexual homes. Frankly, there have not been any studies I have read that either have a large enough sample or have been conducted over a long enough period of the children’s lives to satisfy me completely, but I accept the conclusions of the existing studies up to this point. MUCH more rigorous studies need to be done.
Marriage vows are taken frivolously by so many now that I have little confidence that it will act to materially stabilize any relationship, never mind gay ones. Where is your evidence that it will do so?
Here is the evidence that gay relationships are inherently less stable than heterosexual relationships.
http://papers.ccpr.ucla.edu/papers/PWP-CCPR-2010-013/PWP-CCPR-2010-013.pdf
Interesting link Read especially the last long comment on the dutch experience.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080506175026AAFgL2i
There is an average of about 1500 gay marriages per year in Mass. Considering the total number of gays, and even gay couples, in Mass it is obvious that getting married is not a big deal for most gay people.
That’s not proof though, you’re making assumptions. The studies are about gay parents and they find that they’re stable. That’s not the same thing as finding stable gay parents to study — obviously.
I think you have a personal bias against gay people and you would dismiss any and every shred of evidence you don’t like. That’s very obvious because you’ve cited a recent study that has been torn appart and denounced in the peer review process. It studies married couples and puts them against two members of the same sex who cohabitate. Anybody with a middle school level understanding of science knows that you can only use one variable in an experiment if you want good results. You can’t compare a married set against an unmarried set — obviously. An unmarried opposite sex couple would be similarly unstable compared to a married opposite sex couple as well. That’s not evidence that gays are unstable, that’s evidence of a crappy study.
I think your comment about there not being many gay people is silly. The number is irrelevant. Our rights aren’t contingent on us being a majority — otherwise something like freedom of religion, for example, would only apply to Christians. It’s a ridiculous assertion.
You actively seek out information that affirms your personal bias and you dismiss what goes against it — regardless of reality. You’ll dismiss the bulk of science in this field which says that gays make good parents and instead you’ll say that a comment on Yahoo Answers is what should be looked to? Has some credibility, will you?
And why won’t you answer my question? If gay people are in fact less stable, then why do you want to deny them marriage rights which would lead them to be more stable? If your issue is stability, then I question your intentions and motives if you work to maintain that instability. Seems like if that’s the case you really don’t care about children and you just care about keep gay people down.
It is obvious that you never even looked at or read the links i provided. Especially the one done by the University of California.
Thank you for identifying yourself as being gay. It makes your bias and inability to objectively look at studies understandable. You are totally incapable of rationally discussing facts. It is precisely attitudes like your own that turn many away from even listening to your arguments.
My entire post was accepting of the FACT that STABLE homosexual homes are most probably as good as STABLE heterosexual homes. But the FACT is that as a group homosexual relationships are NOT as stable as heterosexual ones.
“But the FACT is that as a group homosexual relationships are NOT as stable as heterosexual ones. ” – And you left out the reason specified in the study YOU provided. The reason given is that society’s treatment of same sex couples is at least partly responsible for the dissolution rates. I can’t help but wonder if you read to a point that agreed with you and then just stopped reading. The study does NOT say that same sex couples are fundamentally different. It states that the observed differences in dissolution rates can be attributed to the social stigma placed on same sex couples.
You need to read all of the study and not just selectively pick out those parts supporting your political position.
The reason you state, “society’s treatment of same sex couples is at least partly responsible for the dissolution rates” is related to “Levinger’s theory of marital cohesion”. First of all it is not established fact, it is a theory. And if you read the discussion it is obvious that while the theory has strong points when applied to marriage those same factors are much weaker when applied to cohabiting couples. The study lists multiple reasons for the observed instability and several of those reasons point directly to fundamental differences in the same sex couples relationships.
“Future research that integrates attitudes and demographic behavior will be able to shed light on
the relative importance of the ―selection‖ and ―institutional‖ perspectives.” – Meaning that more research is required. Like the theory about marital cohesion, your theory is not established fact. The higher dissolution rates for unmarried same sex couples when compared to unmarried heterosexual couples can just as easily be attributed to the social stigma placed on same sex couples. There are many things that are not taken into account in this study, as the study admits, that could have affected the outcome. It is just a start to the research that is needed to fully understand the subject. For you to say that this study definitely proves that same sex couples are fundamentally different is being dishonest.
Don’t make assumptions. I did read that study. I read it when it came out earlier in the year and I read all the bad press it got for being faulty. I notice you conveniently ignore that part.
I am not gay, actually. Again, don’t make assumptions. I do have gay friends and family members though, as most people do. You clearly have demonstrated your own personal bias against gay people though. I suspect that is why you’re trying to turn things around. Kind of like how bullies like to accuse others of bullying them.
I am not incapable of discussing facts. You have ignored the vast majority of facts on this subject and chose to instead cite a study that has been denounced and Yahoo Answers. Again, you’re trying to turn things around.
I notice you are continuing to ignore my one question. Why be against marriage for gay couples if it is so obvious that those rights would lead to increased stability for those families? You are actively working to undermine their stability otherwise. You are making a circular argument. They don’t deserve marriage rights because they’re unstable and they’re unstable because they don’t have marriage rights.
I apologize for thinking you are gay. The way you worded that paragraph I believed you were identifying yourself as part of that minority.
I at least have provided links and facts. You have provided none as of this time.
I also hold disdain for Yahoo Answers in general. However, that does not mean that occasionally they do not provide something useful. Here is the original piece that was part of the Yahoo answers page.
http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/livestro200406290924.asp
This article itself (the one we’re commenting on) cites many facts that represent the concensus of the field of science, but you and other commenters have dismissed that b citing a study that isn’t exactly considered credible. Not only that, but the study does not say what you claim it does. You’ve found one exception and are trying to act as though it is the rule — that’s not how things work.
Still, if you do believe gay couples aren’t as stable, why are you then against a means of making them more stable?
And being straight makes you unbiased? I’m straight but you don’t need that analysis to evaluate if I or anyone else qwas qualified to make such a study (I’m not, so don’t worry about it). Gross generalizations and unwarranted assumptions decrease your creibility.
And what are the proportions of “unstable” or broken families between straight and gay? Too may straight families have nothing to brag about. And what are the selection criteria for the Regnerus study?
The point is that people can be messed up, gay or straight, man or woman. Whatever. No one has a lock on it and saying that a group of people shouldn’t marry because they’re unstable is just nonsense. Really, just nonsense. We shouldn’t even be engaging this person.
Agreed.
The study has been discredited and has earned Mr. Regenerus academic sanctions. His results mean nothing. He was paid to present the results the anti-gay lobby wanted. Here’s a link to the letter that lays out the case against him:
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/open-letter-to-university-of-texas-regarding-professor-mark-regneruss-alleged-unethical-anti-gay-study/civil-rights/2012/06/24/41977
Did I say anywhere that I agreed with Mr. Regenerus’s conclusions?
His work is as obviously biased as that of many trying to prove gay marriage is good for children.
By the way, The letter you linked to is obviously politically motivated as well and is a good example of trying to kill the messenger rather than dealing with the message.
There are groups supporting his work as well who point out the he discussed the shortcomings of his research rather than trying to hide them and that it does supply more data to be analyzed.
“His work is as obviously biased as that of many trying to prove gay marriage is good for children.” – How are the studies showing that same sex parents do just as well raising children biased?
Read the studies, including methodology, selection criteria, number of study subjects, purpose of the study, biases of the researchers, selective use of data to support desired conclusions. ETC.
The fact is that the majority of all research is biased to some degree. Much of that in the realm of the social sciences is so bad it is laughable.
Each study does have some sort of bias, but when study after study after study all show that there is no difference between children raised by same sex parents and children raised by opposite sex parents, that’s a hint that there really isn’t a difference.
Do you believe the Regnerus study (which is being investigated for its methodology among other things) is an unbiased study …… where did Regnerus get a chunk of funding for this study? A foundation with direct ties to the National Organization of Marriage, who took part in the 2009 repeal in Maine and many other states to oppose SSM, Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships.
If you believe that studies conducted by researchers who may be gay or lesbian are biased, what do you believe about studies funded by opponents of legal recognition of same-sex couples and by organizations tied to religious groups?
Did I say anywhere that I agreed with Mr. Regenerus’s conclusions?
His work is as obviously biased as that of many trying to prove gay marriage is good for children.
“As for the evidence about same-sex parenting – think again – most has been doneby lesbians, the fox in charge of the Hen house!!!”~~~~~~What does that even mean!??!?!
I think it means, don’t listen to the psychological experts on this matter, listen to my incoherent ramblings on a news website.
Care to list the qualifications (or lack thereof) of Mark Regnerus? Care to challenge that data for it’s veracity? And how do you know the sexual orientation of the researchers?
“And how do you know the sexual orientation of the
researchers?
It is called Googling. It’s not hard – you place the researchers name in the
search box and add ‘gay’ for men and lesbian for women – amazingly simple.
You will soon find that almost all, if not all, the so-called ‘studies’ that
purport to show same-sex families are best or as good as biologically intact
families have been done by same-sex attracted people (mostly lesbians) and that
many of them also have children. They have a clear agenda – it’s called self
justification – they are desperately trying to rid themselves of their guilt
about short changing their children.
By that rubric a straight researcher can’t be unbiased either.
I’ll tell you who Mark Regnerus is:
‘What Regnerus did, was to disingenuously cherry-pick his control groups to seek to justify, unscientifically, his prejudices against gay and lesbian parents. Regnerus worked with an invalid sample. Such practices seriously deviate from ethical standards for proposing, conducting and reporting research. The complaint filed against Regnerus does not regard ordinary errors, good faith differences in interpretations or judgments of data, scholarly or political disagreements, good faith personal or professional opinions, or private moral or ethical behavior. In the matter of the Scientific Misconduct Inquiry into the behavior of Mark Regnerus, the University of Texas, Austin’s honor and reputation could be at the stake.
The sum and substance of Regnerus’s alibis are 1) that he used the best available population survey method to survey a tiny population, and that; 2) because he did not survey an adequate number of young adult children raised by gay parents, but; 3)wanted to carry out a study on such persons anyway, he; 4) decided to make stuff up about gay parents and children, and hope for the best for himself.
Notwithstanding that Regnerus made stuff up about gay parents, Regnerus further misrepresented the results of his study when he told The National Review that “This study definitely affirms that there is a gold standard” for parenting, and that the gold standard is the “intact biological heterosexual-headed family.” Regnerus’s study affirmed no such thing. Regnerus did not compare young adult children raised in stable gay-headed households with young adult children raised in heterosexual-headed households. He did not do that in his study, but is talking to the public as though he had, in a way that unjustly demonizes gay parents. As stated above: what Regnerus did, was to disingenuously cherry-pick his control groups to seek to justify, unscientifically, his prejudices against gay and lesbian parents. Such practices seriously deviate from ethical standards for proposing, conducting and reporting research. The University of Texas, Austin, should be extremely concerned that their Associate Professor Regnerus is cherry-picking study control groups to seek to justify his prejudices, and then adding insult to injury by telling the public false things about what his study demonstrated.’
Pffffffffft try again.
The New Testament sanctions slavery. Should we allow that?
And if you don’t mind, please point out to me where Jesus speaks directly about homosexuality. I know that he has a lot to say about divorce, but oddly Christians never try to outlaw that.
Peter, your comment is not worth its salt. Mark Regnerus’ study you speak of has got him in some hot water at the University of Texas where they are in the process of administering academic sanctions and have discredited his work as a result of his accepting funding from an anti-gay organization to falsify the research to deliver the results you are so proudly crowing about. Pretty lame on your part and his, I must say.
Yes, Divorce is shameful. Sadly, selfishness rules too many
heterosexuals lives today.
But, hey, not just hetro lives, just look at Elton John – he acknowledges that
his surrogate son will be devastated about not having, and never knowing his
mother and then decides to devastate another child’s life too by doing it again
just so he can be happy!!! How selfish is that?
Every child born to a same-sex ‘couple’ means another devastated, biologically
disconnected, child – deliberately brought into this world!!
It’s possible to have the mother in the life of the child without the mother being married to the father. That happens all the time across the country with divorced and single parents.
How many women get pregnant just so that they can be happy? In fact, how many couples choose to have children so that they can be happy? Actually, isn’t that a good environment for a child-happiness? Or is there another reason to have children that has nothing to do with happiness?Your take on the children of same sex couples is rude and uncalled for. How dare you say such lies about these children!
Almost anything is possible, Joe, but being ‘possible’ does NOT make it ‘right’.
If, “women get pregnant just so that they can be happy”, They are wrong too. Two wrongs
don’t make a right.
As for my comments being “rude and uncalled for” – what sort of argument is that – it simply means you can’t think of anything better to say. Anyway, it was Elton John who said his son would be devastated and the reason was because his son is and the next one would be a biologically disconnected, child – deliberately brought into this world by selfish adults.
I think that you are being extremely judgmental in deciding what is the appropriate mindset for someone to want a baby.
My remark about your comment wasn’t supposed to be an argument. It was a statement.
All children are “deliberately brought into this world by selfish adults.” Show me one child that was conceived because they asked to be. Oh, that’s right, you can’t. Parents bring children into this world because THEY want to, not because the child needed/wanted it. An act that is done solely for the purpose of benefitting yourself is considered to be a selfish act.
Devastated? So no child should be adopted?
Using one ‘not so good situation’ to justify a bad situation is very poor reasoning, FmrMTI.
Adoption is an attempt to put some quality back into a child’s life – that is a very different thing to deliberately bringing a child into the world, using artificial means, who, in most cases would never know both it’s biological parents. This is wrong whether the people are hetero or homo sexual. In fact it is child abuse.
But it is worse still if that child would knowingly be raised by two men or two women because children need a mother and a father.
Facts disagree.
Wow, That is profound! What facts?
Remember, I did say “an attempt”, and no, it does not always work, but in many situations it does and for most children it is far better than being raised in an orphanage or being alone on the streets.
Well, maybe all the studies that show children raised by same sex parents do just as well as children raised by opposite sex parents. Excuse me if I take the word of professional psychologists, who have done years of research, over some guy on the internet who has a clear bias against gays and lesbians.
http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/15_02_06.pdf This is a link to a summary of four different studies that all state there is no difference between parenting of same sex couples when compared to opposite sex couples.
“Children need a mother and a father”? Way to insult all of the children who were raised by single parents. Tell that to a kid who had one, or both, parents die. Also, biological “parents” doesn’t mean jack. A person can have a baby, that doesn’t make them a parent. What is the point of introducing a child to people who possibly have no desire to meet them? What about a woman who donates an egg and it is surgically implanted into the woman who physically delivers the child? Should the child meet the egg donor? That just sounds ludicrous.
As for same sex couples raising children, I see absolutely no problem with it whether they choose to adopt or go through the process of having one of their own. If a couple is willing to put themselves through either of those processes they obviously want the child and are prepared for it, which is more than I can say for some drunken teenagers having a one night stand resulting in a pregnancy. I am sure though, that you would find that to be a better situation for a child to be in…since it involves a “mother” and a “father.”
So it would follow that every child born to opposite-sex couples who use medical assistance (artificial insemination, donor egg, etc) means another devastated, biologically disconnected child – deliberately brought into this world?
IMO you are following doctrine from a specific sect of faith that does not agree with medically assisted conception.
“Notice the small number of such stable homosexual relationships in Mr Regnerus’s data. ” Because he didn’t actually look for “stable homosexual relationships”. His only qualifier for a child being raised by gay or lesbian parents was if the parent had ever had a same sex relationship. This does NOT mean that the person was actually gay or lesbian.
“In fact, since gays and lesbians are more likely to be progressive socially they are even less likely as a group to take life long commitment to a relationship, including marriage, as important and to think of “moving on” when problems occur in the relationship as both acceptable and even desirable.” – What data do you have to back up that claim?
Here is the evidence that gay relationships are inherently less stable than heterosexual relationships.
http://papers.ccpr.ucla.edu/papers/PWP-CCPR-2010-013/PWP-CCPR-2010-013.pdf
Interesting link Read especially the last long comment on the dutch experience.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080506175026AAFgL2i
There is an average of about 1500 gay marriages per year in Mass.
Considering the total number of gays, and even gay couples, in Mass it
is obvious that getting married is not a big deal for most gay people.
Your comment is pathetic. The bulk of social science in this area says that gays are stable and they make perfectly fine parents. You ignore that and find the one study that you can twist to say otherwise. Do you have any integrity? You have a personal bias against gay people and now you’re trying to affirm it with a comment on Yahoo Answers.
Thank you for ignoring the study done by the University of California. Not to mention all the other international studies finding the same general result.
I already told you why it wasn’t credible. I’m not ignoring it. It went through the peer review process and was denounced.
Further, you’d doing exactly what you accuse me of (that’s called hypocrisy). You ignore the bulk of social science which says that gay people do make good and stable parents — their flaw being that, through no fault of their own, they aren’t afforded marriage rights and protections. Something you actively seek to maintain. That’s proves your biases and reveals that this is about keeping gay people down and not your interested in children/families.
The study does show that same sex relationships have a higher dissolution rate. This is attributed to the lack of marriage rights and the unnecessary social stigma placed on same sex relationships. To say that gay relationships are inherently less stable would mean that the sole reason for the higher dissolution rate is the same sex relationship itself. The study says otherwise. Also, just because there is not a vast number of same sex couples getting married, does not mean that same sex couples do not want the right to marry. I could just as easily mean that same sex couples are waiting until they are ready to marry.
Nice spin. The study took pains to compare unmarried heterosexual relationships as well. You are simply unwilling to accept that statistically as a group there is some basic difference between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples.
The same results are found in European countries with legal same sex marriage. I guess we should just ignore evidence that contradicts your bias.
“The findings are consistent with the perspective the lack of legal and social
institutionalization of same-sex couples may lead same-sex couples to perceive fewer rewards,
fewer barriers, and more alternatives to their unions—leading to higher rates of dissolution.”A quote from the study states that outside influence have an effect on dissolution rates, hence there is no evidence that the sole reason same sex couples have a higher dissolution rate is because they are same sex couples. You don’t get to discriminate against a group of people and then look at the negative consequences of your actions and blame the person you are discriminating against.
So why do you seek to maintain that purported instability by denying gay people the right to marry?
You’re the only one ignoring evidence here. Citing Yahoo Answers, what a joke.
I wish those denouncing gay parents would just come out and be honest. They don’t like gay people and they think they’re less than. That’s all it is. There have no real scientific evidence, as all the studies that find gay parents to be questionable didn’t even actually study gay parents, but instead single parents. All the studies that did use actually families with gay parents, found the gay parents to be as capable and in some cases better than straight parents — this was likely due to the fact that many gay parents are adoptive and that process requires strict vetting.
Ultimately, if you look at the detractors they have no evidence, just personal bias. They’ll try and discredit the APA, but then cite flimsy and disproven science themselves. Have your opinion on the subject, but sorry, you don’t get to have your own set of facts as well.
Everyone know that reality has a liberal bias.
LOL
Taking on the APA? Lots of luck in that one.
Apparently it’s easy to take on the APA when you have some random guy commenting on a Yahoo Answers webpage on your side.
Yeah, facts are not their strong suit.
It makes sense that children would do just as well, if not better, being rasied by a same sex couple when compared to opposite sex couples. A same sex couple will almost always legitametly want a child. Gay and lesbian couples don’t wake up with a hangover to find that they have accidentaly adopted a baby.
I know several same-sex couples who have worked very very to be able to adopt. These children are definitely wanted and definitely loved.
Thank you, Ms. Riddell, for this great rebuttal to Pastor Emrich’s piece.
Well, there it is! According to Ms. Riddell’s studies, marriage, family and child rearing would best be the sole domain of homosexuals, since this will insure academic superiority of children.
Get real.
Emrich was playing on the theme that if you can tie any cause to children you get people to listen but gay marriage has nothing to do with children. Gay couples can adopt children as it is and more than a few traditional couples end up not having children. Making marriage available to gay couples is a matter of equality under the law: economic equality, legal equality, social equality and emotional equality. Emrich is grasping for straws.
Amy, fantastic response to Rev. Emrich and his fellow travelers. Several adoptive kids in our extended families and we appreciate your advocacy.
I am not gay, or bi. I am straight. But I have friends that are gay or
bi. I just find it difficult as it is to find someone to just be
roommates or friends with, let alone someone you want to spend the rest
of your life with. Sometimes your heart beats for reasons that the heart
does not know. Who are we to say it is wrong or against the law. In the
end, it really isn’t “our” decision to make. It is their heart’s
decision. Unless you want to rip out someone’s heart to stop it, then I
say, live and let live.
Great job Amy!!
Pastor Bob and Carroll Conley of the CCLM will be using the same tactics that were used in the 2009 peoples veto campaign – scaring voters with “the children” argument.
They’ve even teamed up with NOM again, and hired a very familiar public relations firm from California:
http://www.dirigoblue.com/2012/07/anti-gay-marriage-group-receives-10000-donation-from-nom-hires-familiar-california-pr-firm/