The banning of homosexual marriage, and banning of Civil unions. [Archive]

wasteofo2

Nov9-04, 10:38 PM

As I'm sure most of you know, on Nov. 2, there were ballot initiatives in 11 states to define marriage as between a man and a woman exclusively, they all passed with considerable margins. In 8 of the 11 states there were further provision to essentially eliminate homosexual civil unions as a possibility.

Initially, I was so outraged Bush won, that I couldn't focus on any specific issue, but this is really horribly frightening.

I thought that this country was past it's legalized bigotry kick, but apparently not. It's just shoking that so many people feel it's so important that queer folk don't have any rights and don't get the same privileges they get when they marry someone.

I assume (and hope) that this is just a problem in rural America, where people rarely encounter anyone different from themselves, and have no reason/need to be tolerant, but I really don't know.

Can anyone here even try to offer an explanation as to why this is a good thing, or can you all realize that this is possibly THE most dispicable thing legally going on in America now.

To think, barely 30 years ago, interracial marriage was illegal. All those people from 30 years ago must've just shifted their energies or something.

Smurf

Nov9-04, 11:46 PM

I talked to a christian girl in my school about this and she said that half of her didn't support it because it was their right, and as far as them signing a peace of paper to say they're married she didn't have a problem. But if it's a priest giving a blessing to them then she wouldn't support that because its blasphemy.

But thats an urban canadian opinion, the rural american one is probably much stupider

russ_watters

Nov10-04, 06:28 AM

It's just shoking that so many people feel it's so important that queer folk don't have any rights and don't get the same privileges they get when they marry someone. They do get the same rights I do - they can't marry someone of the same sex and neither can I. Can anyone here even try to offer an explanation as to why this is a good thing... Not good or bad, but an explanation of why it happened: Like it or not, there are two different types of marriage - the religious one and the legal one. The religious one is defined by the various churches. The legal one needs a definition in law.

Kerrie

Nov10-04, 09:18 AM

The religious one is defined by the various churches. The legal one needs a definition in law.

Being married by a priest but not receiving a marriage license does not entitle a person to the state benefits and laws that a couple receives if they are married by a justice of the peace. The gay folks are ultimately after the benefits not just the title of spouse. You have gay couples who have been together longer then many married couples who cannot make a decision for their spouse should they require to have a plug pulled (for example), but their parent (whom they have bad relations with for example) can make that decison, but does not know ultimately what they would want. Multnomah County in Oregon (where I live and the heart of all of those couples legally married) allowed civil unions prior to the gay marriage act being banned. In a way they may have it worse now then before all of the commotion.

America is quite hypocritical though...we ban a gay marriage, but we have 1-800-divorce or do it yourself divorce. Among heterosexual couples, the divorce rate is over 50%. If we are going to monitor morality, this is an area that needs to be addressed just as well.

vanesch

Nov10-04, 10:01 AM

Can anyone here even try to offer an explanation as to why this is a good thing, or can you all realize that this is possibly THE most dispicable thing legally going on in America now.

Well, there's quite some discussion going on about that in several European countries. As far as I know, gay marriage is legal in Belgium (recently). France, for instance, hesitates, but has created a legal solution in that gay couples can subscribe to a contract which gives them rights (if one of them dies and so on) which are very similar to those of a married hetero couple.

Personally, I think there are 2 issues. I think that gay couples should have a kind of union contract such as a marriage ; but whether we have to call that "marriage" or something else doesn't really matter. I'm not opposed to calling it "marriage" but I have to say that it makes me smile a bit. Who's the bride and who's the groom and so on ? I think a lot of trouble can be spared if they have the same rights, but we give the thing another name.
The other issue, however, is a bit more involved, and concerns the adoption of children. I really don't know if that's a good idea. I don't say this on "moral" grounds or anything, it is just that I don't know if it is a good thing for the psychological devellopment of a child to be raised by two daddies.
It is probably better to have two daddies than no daddy at all, but nevertheless, I have this gut feeling that one should be careful here.

humanino

Nov10-04, 10:13 AM

I have this gut feeling that one should be careful here.
I disagree. I know of more than one homosexual couple who could very well raise a kid, at least much better than many irresponsible parents out there.

What is wrong with the popular american opinions, I wish I knew. I thought television was very careful in pretending all minorities have equal rights, including the homosexual community. I always found it funny, because I think sodomy is still forbidden in some states :rolleyes: How can one pretend to respect a community and forbid sexual act for them !?

vanesch

Nov10-04, 10:21 AM

I disagree. I know of more than one homosexual couple who could very well raise a kid, at least much better than many irresponsible parents out there.

I wasn't saying that homosexual couples can't be good and responsible parents. I wonder what it does to the child, however. I think I would have found it quite disturbing not to have a mother and a father.

because I think sodomy is still forbidden in some states

:rofl: :rofl:

I heard that in the white house, fellation is forbidden ? :tongue: :tongue:

Gokul43201

Nov10-04, 10:30 AM

The last state to have anti-sodomy laws was Texas which was ordered to shove it, a couple of years ago. So, I don't believe there are now any states in the US with anti-sodomy laws.

Now for fellatio in the White House, however ...:wink:

PerennialII

Nov10-04, 10:41 AM

I wonder what it does to the child, however. I think I would have found it quite disturbing not to have a mother and a father.

Parents aren't required anything ... anyone who pretty much wants can have a kid and raise him/her in any way they like (the letter of law is not a parental guidebook, nor does it lead to explicitly good parenting). So I can't see a reason why same sex couples could not raise kids and as good of a job in it as anyone else ?

Les Sleeth

Nov10-04, 11:05 AM

I wasn't saying that homosexual couples can't be good and responsible parents. I wonder what it does to the child, however. I think I would have found it quite disturbing not to have a mother and a father

My reservations about gay "marriage" are the same. To me an important part of what marriage represents is the commitment to maintain a nurturing home for raising children. But what constitutes the ideal nurturing environment for a child? Well, I think children are taught something, much of it viscerally, by having a balance of male and female in the house. I don't think two males or two females provide that; and it isn’t an indictment of, or prejudice against, homosexuality to recognize that if it’s true.

Right now of course, there are plenty of homes without both parents present. There are orphans without anyone to care about them. Around here where I live (where there’s a large gay/lesbian population) I often see formerly married people who are now involved in a homosexual relationship and who have brought the children with them. These are situations where one realizes one does the best one can under the circumstances.

But if marriage is legal recognition and benefits for those who will raise children, whether from sex or adoption, then I hope it continues to stand for what we ideally would like the home environment to be.

That leaves the possibility for civil union, and I hope we allow it for homosexual couples who want to commit. It is good for society to have people working as a team, not having multiple sex partners, and feeling accepted by and part of the community. I wouldn’t even mind if heterosexual couples were only legally granted “civil union” status until they had children.

adrenaline

Nov10-04, 12:54 PM

While no church could ever be ordered to recognize or preform same sex marriages, we should not block a courthouse marriage between two consenting adults.

I actually find the issue refreshing (although not the most important issue on my politcal agenda) as we are in a time when marriage is rapidly losing its allure for many hetrosexuals, this deep desire of so many gays to commit themselves to marriage, with all its rewards and sacrafices, is quite promising. (In fact, Denmark which has sanctioned gay marriages for over 10 years show that gay marriages have 1/5 the divorce rate of heterosexual marriages) and this, in my opinion, contributes to some societal stability.

But that's just my two cents.

But let's face it, much of the history of marriage involves marriage as a strictly utilitarian tool, a social and economic contract between individuals. It was a means to ally political bases or dole out and distribute wealth and land etc. etc. It wasn't until recently that we interjected love and sancitity into it. Thus, this issue of gay marriage is just trying to get back to the roots of marriage! It is a means by which a gay couple can recieve all the legal and economic benefits that a heterosexual couple enjoys as its contract with society!

Evo

Nov10-04, 01:00 PM

wasteofo2

Nov10-04, 02:22 PM

The other issue, however, is a bit more involved, and concerns the adoption of children. I really don't know if that's a good idea. I don't say this on "moral" grounds or anything, it is just that I don't know if it is a good thing for the psychological devellopment of a child to be raised by two daddies.
It is probably better to have two daddies than no daddy at all, but nevertheless, I have this gut feeling that one should be careful here.
I know a girl who has 2 fathers, you'd never know she had two fathers, is never mocked for it, and acts just as normal as any teenage girl.

Les Sleeth

Nov10-04, 02:53 PM

I know a girl who has 2 fathers, you'd never know she had two fathers, is never mocked for it, and acts just as normal as any teenage girl.

Citing too limited of a sampling isn't a good argument. What we really need are studies. I admit my own opinion is intuitive, plus how much I value having had both a female and a male present throughout my childhood. I can most definitely see in myself the results of early and constant male and female influences in the home.

I also have to add that we liberal types who want to stick up for the abused -- gay and lesbian fellow human beings in this case -- should not let sentimentality get in the way off thinking about this issue clearly. Personally, my ONLY concern is the child-rearing thing, and I don't think we should rush ahead with that before we understand all the consequences.

adrenaline

Nov10-04, 04:03 PM

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/RP30.html

A number of concerns have been raised about the potential negative effects of being raised in a gay or lesbian-headed family. These include the child's confusion in terms of gender identity; problems in personal development and social relationships; harm resulting from family disruption (on the assumption that gay and lesbian relationships are more short lived than heterosexual relationships); and fear of sexual molestation by their gay or lesbian parents (Patterson 1992). The overall mental health of lesbian mothers compared with that of heterosexual mothers has also been raised as an issue (Patterson 2002: 322). Another anxiety is that children might be teased and ostracised by their peers, and consequently show difficulties in social and emotional development.

A literature is accumulating that suggests that children raised by gays or lesbians do not show poor adjustment when compared with other children (Golombok, Spencer and Rutter 1983; Green, Mandel, Hotvedt and Smith 1986; Patterson 1992, 2000). Further, no differences have been found when lesbian and heterosexual mothers are compared on measures of self-concept, happiness, overall adjustment, psychiatric status, parenting style and general parenting ability (for a comprehensive review of the research on children in gay and lesbian households see Patterson 2002, 2000; see also Golombok 1999: 440; Allen and Burrell 1996). Studies based on fathers' reports of their own behaviour suggest that gay fathers may be more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to exhibit authoritative patterns of parenting behaviour (Patterson 2002: 324).

However, much of the available research has involved small, unrepresentative samples that are predominantly well educated, middle class and American (Patterson 2002). The degree to which results reflect sampling biases of the research, and their applicability in the Australian context, are thus difficult to evaluate.

Les Sleeth

Nov10-04, 05:23 PM

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/RP30.html

Well, I've had this debate before with Zero when he was a mentor here, and was made to feel like I was homophobic (not that you are doing any such thing . . . it just makes me hesitate to defend my views). If you knew me you'd know I am about as sexually liberated as a person gets :cool:. So what I have to say has nothing to do with thinking anything is "morally" wrong with homosexuality (I don't even think sex itself is a moral issue, and I am not religious either).

The limited amount of studies done don't tell us yet what we need to know; and I have to say that I also suspect some of the research is let's say "sympathetic." The main concern I have is for infants through age 5. Although there isn't enough information to evaluate long-term effects, there are people nonetheless saying "go ahead anyway" out of the desire to make gays and lesbians feel accepted. A noble gesture, but is it what's best?

The marriage situation is in pretty bad shape, that's for sure, with lots of single parents trying to work and raise the kids alone. Even couples that stay together might dislike each other and fight all the time, or ignore or mistreat their children, and so fail to provide a nurturing home life. With things such a mess, how much difference can it make even if same-sex child rearing turns out not to be what is best for children?

I suppose I am conservative in this regard, and hope that instead of letting the family ideal drift whatever way the wind blows it, that we take a clue from the fact that nature itself spent millions of years creating the male-female basis of child rearing. Maybe as we increase our understanding of human psychology, and make sure the general population is taught that, relationships will improve to the point that we can better practice what nature seems to have established.

But if after we do have suffiecient evidence it turns out that same sex parenting makes no difference to the development of the child, then my concern will disappear. :smile:

vanesch

Nov12-04, 03:03 AM

Citing too limited of a sampling isn't a good argument. What we really need are studies. I admit my own opinion is intuitive, plus how much I value having had both a female and a male present throughout my childhood. I can most definitely see in myself the results of early and constant male and female influences in the home.

I also have to add that we liberal types who want to stick up for the abused -- gay and lesbian fellow human beings in this case -- should not let sentimentality get in the way off thinking about this issue clearly. Personally, my ONLY concern is the child-rearing thing, and I don't think we should rush ahead with that before we understand all the consequences.

You express exactly my thoughts :smile:

Gokul43201

Nov12-04, 10:03 AM

The limited amount of studies done don't tell us yet what we need to know; and I have to say that I also suspect some of the research is let's say "sympathetic." The main concern I have is for infants through age 5. Although there isn't enough information to evaluate long-term effects, there are people nonetheless saying "go ahead anyway" out of the desire to make gays and lesbians feel accepted. A noble gesture, but is it what's best?

Studies on what ? What consequences ? How can you have studies or consequences of a thing that is not allowed to happen ? Hope some other "reckless" culture allows it, so they can be studied ?

Not too many (four ?) decades ago, law-makers were concerned about the long term effects on young children who were born of a couple having one white parent, and one black. While the concern for the children of interracial marriage is not misplaced, would that have been sufficient reason to stop a black man from marrying a white woman ? What do you think, Les ?

On a more mainstream (the above concern is too liberal and hardly the popular concern) note, though : "If you can marry blacks, what next...will you also ask to marry your dog ?" is simply what we hear now for gay-marriage. And it's pathetic ! A 1991 poll showed that 42% of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage !

Anyway, I too have concerns about the adoption issue...I'm still undecided on that. But that is not the only concern of the law-makers or the majority of the population. 'Cause if that were the only concern, we would maybe ban that alone. The concern is that you are rewarding sinners who should be punished (on the extreme side) and that you are denigrating the institution of marriage (by the rest).

And speaking of studies...since there are more "reckless" cultures, we fortunately, do have studies. In Denmark, where gay marriage has been legal since the early nineties, the divorce rate among "traditional" marriages is about 5 times as high as among same-sex marriages. I, however, have not seen any studies (yet) on same-sex adoption.

(PS : Les, I don't you to feel like I'm calling you homophobic...I share much the same concerns that you do)

BobG

Nov12-04, 10:39 AM

Marriage is primarily intended on defining families in society. Like many pieces of our society, it winds up combining a few separate issues into one (actually, not only is combining several issues into one 'piece' efficient, but it ties all the separate 'pieces' closer together so the society's structure is less likely to fall apart).

One big part of marriage has to do with raising kids. Whether gay couples are allowed to adopt kids is something to be decided separately from the other aspects of marriage. While it may not be the 'ideal' arrangement for raising families, it would be hard to say it would be worse in practice. There's so many variations from the ideal that the whole idea that a heterosexual couple can raise a family more effectively may be flawed. I think the idea that heterosexual couples must be better at raising families may be based more on aesthetics than practical examples (i.e. - if it takes a heterosexual couple to conceive a child, then it must logically follow that a heterosexual couple can also raise kids better - what fiend would design a system where the homosexual couples were better at child raising?).

The child-rearing role of marriage and the appropriateness of extending those roles to gay couples is certainly debatable - with no clear cut best answer at this time.

A second part of marriage deals with how one handles his possessions, material wealth, etc and who makes decisions on your behalf if you're incapable of making those decisions yourself. It's no one else's business how you decide to resolve those kinds of issues.

The law should provide a mechanism for you to legally resolve those issues any way you see fit.

Les Sleeth

Nov12-04, 12:52 PM

Studies on what ? What consequences ? How can you have studies or consequences of a thing that is not allowed to happen ? Hope some other "reckless" culture allows it, so they can be studied ?

Not too many (four ?) decades ago, law-makers were concerned about the long term effects on young children who were born of a couple having one white parent, and one black. While the concern for the children of interracial marriage is not misplaced, would that have been sufficient reason to stop a black man from marrying a white woman ? What do you think, Les ?

On a more mainstream (the above concern is too liberal and hardly the popular concern) note, though : "If you can marry blacks, what next...will you also ask to marry your dog ?" is simply what we hear now for gay-marriage. And it's pathetic ! A 1991 poll showed that 42% of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage !

Anyway, I too have concerns about the adoption issue...I'm still undecided on that. But that is not the only concern of the law-makers or the majority of the population. 'Cause if that were the only concern, we would maybe ban that alone. The concern is that you are rewarding sinners who should be punished (on the extreme side) and that you are denigrating the institution of marriage (by the rest).

And speaking of studies...since there are more "reckless" cultures, we fortunately, do have studies. In Denmark, where gay marriage has been legal since the early nineties, the divorce rate among "traditional" marriages is about 5 times as high as among same-sex marriages. I, however, have not seen any studies (yet) on same-sex adoption.

(PS : Les, I don't you to feel like I'm calling you homophobic...I share much the same concerns that you do)

I don't sense you are calling me homophobic. I think you are sticking up for a group that's endured a lot of hell for no good reason. That makes it almost impossible to criticize without appearing to deepen wounds.

I don't think the racial example is relevant, not at least to my point. Nor are all the many things wrong with society and relationships. I am only talking about the psychological balance provided by the early influence of two genders, and our willingness now, because of all the social-interpersonal problems in the world, to give up on the ideal of a child being entitled to a mother and a father. As I said, I am very aware of that dual influence in me, and appreciate that I was able to experience and learn from it.

Political Prodigy

Nov12-04, 03:28 PM

People fear what is different from them. You can find it everywhere.
Anti semitism
Racism (against African Americans)
after september eleventh many muslims now deal with racism towards them.

It really is sad. The only thing I am going to say on the topic now is that maybe we should take action against the anti semitism and racism that still exists today. African Americans and Jewish people have been dealing with discrimination for thousands of years. While many people are against gay marriage and some people may disrespect them, I feel it is important to deal with the more pressing matters, not to say that they do not matter. It just "boggles my mind" to think of how long many africans and jewish people have dealt with discrimination and now all of a sudden there is a gay rights movement and they are near the top of the list of matters to be dealt with.

On the topic of gay marriage, I am undecided. Yes I think everyone should be free to marry who they wish, and I believe "all man were created equal." However, it is nearly impossible to have a free and equal society. For example communism can be said to give equality to all. A democracy/ capitalist system gives freedom. But can you ever truly have both?

Les Sleeth

Nov12-04, 04:59 PM

I think the idea that heterosexual couples must be better at raising families may be based more on aesthetics than practical examples (i.e. - if it takes a heterosexual couple to conceive a child, then it must logically follow that a heterosexual couple can also raise kids better - what fiend would design a system where the homosexual couples were better at child raising?).

Hmmmmm. If we were to debate this in biology, strictly from an evolution point of view, then I think we'd hear the opinion that nature selected the two gender approach to child rearing. It doesn't have to be that way you know. It could have been that one human could create an offspring; or two humans but of the same gender. Should we be so quick to write off those millions of years of evolution as "aesthetics," or to replace it with theories of child-rearing that are barely decades old? Why not err on the side of caution?

It is difficult to be objective, no matter what side one is on. The homophobes and the sympathetic both have problems setting aside bias in order to look at what is best for the children.

Integral

Nov12-04, 05:52 PM

They do get the same rights I do - they can't marry someone of the same sex and neither can I.

So much for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

Does this mean that my only rights are to be just like you? How can you possibly misinterpret the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution so badly? Perhaps we should simply start a fire with those outdated and ignored documents. I have little hope that personal freedoms (other then the freedom to be just like Russ Waters!) will be held important by the current adminstration. I see this as a distressing invasion of fundamental human rights. Why does the sex of the partners of a committed relationship make any difference to the state?

I am sorry Russ that you could possibly approve of this outcome.

As for the ability to raise kids, keep in mind that virtually all homosexuals are the product of heterosexual relationships. Really we know absolutely NOTHING about what makes a good parent. A good parent is something that that just happens , they are not made in shool or church or even by good parents. I do not think that there is ANY ONE that knows why or how to tell the difference, until the kids become adults.

Hopefully, some one will push this issue to the supreme court, where one would hope, that the fundamental principles this nation was founded on, will win out in the end.

Welcome to the Kalahari,

Land of the Bushmen.

I apologize to the true Bushmen of the Kalahari for this unfavorable comparison.

russ_watters

Nov12-04, 06:13 PM

I am sorry Russ that you could possibly approve of this outcome. I didn't say if I approve or disapprove, Integral - I'm actually fairly ambivalent about the issue. The reason I said the thing you objected to is simply to highight the rhetoric and point out that wherever the line is drawn, a line does have to be drawn, and someone will end up on a side they don't like. There are, and must be, constraints on who can marry who and that cannot be construed to mean that the laws are different for one person than another.

Integral

Nov12-04, 06:27 PM

There are, and must be, constraints on who can marry who and that cannot be construed to mean that the laws are different for one person than another.

Yep, marriage is a committed relationship between two consenting HUMANS. Isn't that a pretty well defined line?

Hurkyl

Nov12-04, 06:42 PM

Yep, marriage is a committed relationship between two consenting HUMANS. Isn't that a pretty well defined line?

Out of curiousity, when did the definition change from "man and woman" to "humans"? I find it ridiculous that homosexuals are seeking legal and financial benefits through redefinition of terms, rather than just seeking those benefits directly.

(And yes, I am also annoyed that the word "gay" has been commandeered to refer to a homosexual)

Les Sleeth

Nov12-04, 07:03 PM

Yep, marriage is a committed relationship between two consenting HUMANS. Isn't that a pretty well defined line?

Although you say we "know absolutely NOTHING about what makes a good parent," it isn't true at all. We have accumulated a great deal of information about that. Keeping in mind that I have absolutely no opposition to humans of any gender or other persuasion committing to a permanent and exclusive relationship, I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts about the value of having both male and female parents involved a child's development as the ideal.

Les Sleeth

Nov12-04, 07:17 PM

Out of curiousity, when did the definition change from "man and woman" to "humans"? I find it ridiculous that homosexuals are seeking legal and financial benefits through redefinition of terms, rather than just seeking those benefits directly.

(And yes, I am also annoyed that the word "gay" has been commandeered to refer to a homosexual)

Now THAT I don't understand. Do you think it is worthwhile to encourage people to live in a committed relationship over having multiple sex partners? Is it best for society for gays/lesbians to see themselves as being acceptable to the community and so feel encouraged to participate in it?

Think about it practically. Homosexuality, even if it is a choice, is not a choice the vast majority who feel it can do anything about; so one way or another it is not a choice. Also, we have to make certain that our attitudes are not being influenced by our personal revulsion of homosexuality (or the other side, sentimentality for the oppressed).

In every other case it has proven best to accept, absorb, and include those we formerly discriminated against. But (getting back to my concern) being non-judgemental about homosexual behavior is an entirely different issue from deciding if same sex parents are ideal for child rearing.

bross7

Nov12-04, 07:29 PM

Dayle Record

Nov12-04, 07:53 PM

Bigots worry that the children raised by gay people, won't be bigoted enough, toward their parents sexual orientation. Bigots worry that children of homosexuals might be encouraged to be gay, and that is some strange projection from the bigot side of the fence. Bigots also worry that they will have to show their children how bigoted they are, by forbidding their children to associate with the children of gay people. Bigots are discomfited by the whole thing, so they attempt to make it go away. They try to project that their sacred marriages, that end in divorce are somehow less sacred because, gays can be married too.

Do heterosexual parents stand around encouraging their children to practice heterosexuality, by acting out sexually in front of their children? Is it the assumption of bigots, that gay people are also child molesters?

I think that once gay people marry and make families and move into neighborhoods, then bigots are forced to confront their bigotry. Therefore this can't happen.

Of course there is the Sodom and Gomorrah affect, in which people fear that God will come back all of a sudden, and wreak his fury on the Sodomites, Gomorrans, San Franciscans, and New Yorkers, if the righteous don't wreak his fury on gays, themselves, before he gets here. Yeah, like we need this mindset making legislation, or revising our splendid constitution.

Hurkyl

Nov12-04, 08:32 PM

Now THAT I don't understand.

I think that's because you're interpreting my response as being to an issue to which it wasn't intended.

Les Sleeth

Nov12-04, 08:40 PM

Les Sleeth

Nov12-04, 08:50 PM

I think that's because you're interpreting my response as being to an issue to which it wasn't intended.

Okay. I know it is quite easy to misinterpret when one is trading ideas on a forum.

Gokul43201

Nov12-04, 08:54 PM

Hmmmmm. If we were to debate this in biology, strictly from an evolution point of view, then I think we'd hear the opinion that nature selected the two gender approach to child rearing. It doesn't have to be that way you know. It could have been that one human could create an offspring; or two humans but of the same gender.

"nature selected the two gender approach to child rearing"

Wait a minute. Don't you mean child-bearing ? At least your counter-examples only talk of child-bearing. The only biological advantage for child rearing that I can think of is the development of mammary glands (and this is not restricted to females, though the hormonal stimulus to lactation is natural for female humans). In short, I don't see evidence of any evolutionary trend favoring child rearing by a mother and father. There may well be many...I'm just not aware of them, and your counter-examples were not germane to child rearing, as such.

On the other hand, there does seem to be a kind of stability and utility to having and promoting monogamous relationships. Polygamous societies tend to be more backward and repressed.

Les Sleeth

Nov12-04, 08:59 PM

I think one of the most interesting things is how people who have not grown up with homosexual parentage say "Well I wouldn't like that very much".
Unless you specifically grew up in that type of home, how do you know?

That isn't a very good argument. Back in the '70's when I was in college and newly married, I had a class with an older woman who was in an "open marriage." She spent a lot of time trying to convince me about the advantages of open marriage, and that I should try it. Now, do you say I had no basis for evaluating her proposal because I'd never tried it?

I have lived a few decades, I was raised by parents, I do live in the midst of very large gay and lesbian communities, I have studied psychology, I do notice things, I don't detect in myself any prejudice against homosexuality . . . I don't say I know the truth about this, but I do say that our children are important and that we should be careful.

Integral

Nov12-04, 09:16 PM

Although you say we "know absolutely NOTHING about what makes a good parent," it isn't true at all. We have accumulated a great deal of information about that. Keeping in mind that I have absolutely no opposition to humans of any gender or other persuasion committing to a permanent and exclusive relationship, I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts about the value of having both male and female parents involved a child's development as the ideal.

If we knew anything, or had any concept of what makes a good parent then we could give classes and bad parenting would end. It just aint going to happen, unfortunately there are simply to many variables (the kids themselves being the major one!) . I don't care how many studies you do, you cannot predict whether a persons parenting skills will be good or bad. I doubt that we could even come up with a reasonable definition of what it means to be a good parent. The fact is good kids can come from bad parents, and bad kids can come from good parents.

To claim that sexual orientation has anything to do with parenting skills is similar to claiming that green eyed people cannot learn math. There is no correlation between the trait and the ability.

Hurkyl,

I am simply looking at this from the view point of the basic rights of a citizen of a "free society". Why, in a free society, should there be any mention of the sex, or race, or height, or weight of the partners in a committed relationship? The key here is the the phrase committed relationship, the government should encourage and even reward citizens who behave in a socially responsible manner. Committing yourself to a long term relationship with a single partner is considered socially responsible in our culture, therefore all who engage, or wish to engage, in this behavior should be rewarded equally.

Of course, my error is obvious... we do not live in a free society. It is clear that given the freedom to legislate we legislate away freedom.

Les Sleeth

Nov12-04, 09:16 PM

[i]In short, I don't see evidence of any evolutionary trend favoring child rearing by a mother and father. There may well be many...I'm just not aware of them, and your counter-examples were not germane to child rearing, as such.

Well, the two-parent home is how it turned out, and as far back as we can see consciousness in humans, we see this. And then, the human infant is more vulnerable and has a longer maturing time than other animals. Without the long term support children wouldn't survive and so neither would humanity.

Gokul43201

Nov12-04, 09:26 PM

While I disagree with a small part of what you're saying...I think this topic is now being sidetracked to 'homosexual adoption', from the intended 'same sex unions'.

Unfortunately, discussion is catalysed by having opposing views and there doesn't seem to be anyone that has a good reason for banning same sex unions and having legal privileges accorded to people involved in such unions.

Les Sleeth

Nov12-04, 09:36 PM

If we knew anything, or had any concept of what makes a good parent then we could give classes and bad parenting would end. It just aint going to happen, unfortunately there are simply to many variables (the kids themselves being the major one!) . I don't care how many studies you do, you cannot predict whether a persons parenting skills will be good or bad. I doubt that we could even come up with a reasonable definition of what it means to be a good parent. The fact is good kids can come from bad parents, and bad kids can come from good parents.

I rather not argue about this (since I don't want to have to start quoting experts, books to reference . . . I'm feeling lazy tonight), but I know for a fact that the principles are known. The are essentially the same principles that make someone a good (okay, a great) manager. One problem is, it ISN't taught to prospective parents; but the bigger problem is, to implement good parenting skills, even if they are known, also requires a person to be relatively healthy psychologically. Humanity has a long way to go before we see that.

The fact that "good kids can come from bad parents, and bad kids can come from good parents" doesn't describe the norm. One cannot make case for the norm by citing the exceptions.

To claim that sexual orientation has anything to do with parenting skills is similar to claiming that green eyed people cannot learn math. There is no correlation between the trait and the ability.

Well, my point wasn't that a gay or lesbian human being can't be a good parent. I have seen that they certainly can be. My concern is what we deem the ideal child-rearing situation. Are we ready to say the mother and dad thing is absolutely no more significant to a child's development than same sex child-rearing?

Dayle Record

Nov12-04, 09:55 PM

Gokul43201

Nov12-04, 10:04 PM

It really is sad. The only thing I am going to say on the topic now is that maybe we should take action against the anti semitism and racism that still exists today. African Americans and Jewish people have been dealing with discrimination for thousands of years. While many people are against gay marriage and some people may disrespect them, I feel it is important to deal with the more pressing matters, not to say that they do not matter. It just "boggles my mind" to think of how long many africans and jewish people have dealt with discrimination and now all of a sudden there is a gay rights movement and they are near the top of the list of matters to be dealt with.

You're missing the point. Racial or color based discrimination is a social effect, not a legal one. The law affords equal opportunity to blacks and whites to jews and christians. We're not talking about social prejudice but legal acceptance.

Les Sleeth

Nov12-04, 10:22 PM

I consider the people who voted to ban gay marriage, to be bigots.

The issue of children, well people have and get children for many different reasons, many to simply validate their own existences. I know a lot of gay young people at this point in my life, because I am not prejudiced against gay people, and I have teenage children, their gay friends are comfortable knowing that I know and accept them. I know gay couples that have children. None of the children of the gay couples, are gay. All of the gay children come from heterosexual couples. All of the teenage children I know, gay and straight will walk out of school on Tuesday to march to the city-county building to protest the passage of the anti-gay marriage amendment in Utah. Watch for it. The University is walking down the hill for the event as well. Every gay teenager has just been denied their future happiness, even as it appeared to be in their grasp, with the adoption of legalized gay marriages elsewhere in the nation.

I dislike the new ugly fervor in this nation, and the gloating of the fundamentalists, and the stacking of the sciences, and courts with dimwit believers. I believe that I apparently haven't worked hard enough in my lifetime to promote human and civil rights, I had best get on with it. It seems a hopeless social deluge, all flowing backwards.

Anyway, regarding children. Good parents do not subject children to their explicit sexuality. Good parents do not seduce each other in front of their children, and then excuse themselves to go off to the bedroom, whether good heterosexual parents, or good homosexual parents. Good parents make sure their children are well taken care of in their absence, and have good support systems, trusted sitters, good daycare. The rules for good parenting, are frequently broken, in every sort of household.

In Salt Lake, a two year old girl was found wandering State Street at eleven o'clock on a rainy night, barefoot, this week. She was the result of heterosexual sex. Her drug addicted mom, a teenaged heterosexual, left the child with a drunken man in a motel, while she partied elsewhere. She left the door open when she went, and the drunken man passed out. Hence the baby girl was found walking in the rain, barefoot, alone in the night. this child would be much better off with 1. A family who cares for her, 2. A single parent who cares for her. 3. A gay couple who cares for her. 4. A gay single parent who cares for her. Anyone of the four alternatives would be better than what she has going for her now, in her heterosexual world.

In a restaurant in California, I was watching the Sunday morning crowd, in a lower income beach town. Family one, was late for church. The large Mother was watching the watch, and plainly in charge, it was a family of three. The older teenage daughter looked chagrined by being with her parents in public, she was dressed for church. Father and Daughter seemed frail by comparison to the big momma in charge. Family two, was young, both parents looked granola professional, the kids were very appealing and young, no one was in charge, all were happy. Family three I saw going out, was two very gay women, and their two teenaged children. The children were very relaxed, and were used to whatever curiosity came their way, they looked completely normal in every way, and happy. Life goes on.

While I appreciate your compassion, and determination to fight prejudice, not a single thing you said addressed my point! I was sure this would be how my position would be interpreted. I should keep my mouth shut, but consider this analogy. The world unfairly hates Blarks, but an effort to change that makes Blarks the center of humanitarian efforts. Everyone then becomes so infatuated with Blarks they start incorporating aspects of Blark's lifestyle into their own. A nutritionist who's studied their diet find that it seems to lack vitamin c, and so warns people to be careful about adopting that diet. When anyone hears his concern they scream "Blark bigot!!!!!"

A child is born of a male and a female. Do you know whether a child's psychological development is also best supported by a two gender household? Do you know whether same gender parents lack a certain balance that comes naturally from two gender parents?

This is not a question of gay rights. It is a child-rearing question. But if it were about rights, answer this, who's rights should come first if it came down to that: a child's development rights or gay social rights?

But even that isn't really what I am saying. I want to slow down about what we decide is ideal for a child's development. Even if we can't always attain that ideal, if we recognize what it is, we can strive for it. But if we say "anything goes" because things are messed up anyway, or if out of sympathy for some oppressed group we say "sure, let's give them _____ (fill in the blank)" to make them feel better no matter what the consequences are to what we gave them, then to me that is a path to decline overall.

Smurf

Nov12-04, 10:31 PM

Les Sleeth, as far as child rearing is concerned I see no reason why homosexual parents would be less competent parents than heterosexual parents. It seems to me there are plenty of bad heterosexual parents as it is and we need to vastly improve this overall, I believe the sexual orientation of the parents is negligible, especially since we allow one woman to raise a child on her own, but not 2? Same goes for men.

And I just want to share this:
I used to think that people against gay marriage were just plain bigotes, but then I was talking to a friend the other day, and what she said made sense for once. She said that [it is against the bible] and as far as signing a peace of paper she had no problem with it, but as for a priest giving a blessing upon them - that was the problem.
I found this a good explanation.

GENIERE

Nov12-04, 10:54 PM

…How can you possibly misinterpret the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution so badly…Hopefully, some one will push this issue to the supreme court, where one would hope, that the fundamental principles this nation was founded on, will win out in the end.

The US Constitution strongly sides with Integral re: homosexuality but not for the reasons cited. It’s a civil matter thus a province of the states. It is for that reason the president must seek an amendment. I’m sure he realizes it is unlikely to occur, as conservatives are generally unhappy with altering the constitution. But! Conservatives are very, very unhappy with a liberal interpretation, so the pro-homosexual-rights people should press the issue with extreme caution. I’d forget the marriage part and pursue the civil union part. I’d forget the “Tommy has two Daddies” schoolbooks, open displays of sexuality…Why offend the people whose support you need, especially if they are the majority; it’s just plain dumb. My personal position is kinda, I don't really care about what other people do, somethings I don't want to know about, somethings I don't even want to think about. It's your right to do it, it's my right not to see it or hear it. It's not your right to "educate" my children, if you push, I'll shove.

Many amendments were made but I’m only aware of one being repealed.

...

BoulderHead

Nov12-04, 11:01 PM

Marriage as a legal union begs the question; why? I suppose a majority of people on this planet truly believe it the business of State to sanction all those wishing to sleep with each other for extended periods of time and copulate, have offspring, and so forth. If it isn’t about some ‘benefit’ then it is pointless, but if it is about a benefit then it becomes more complicated and very likely disgusting.

Marriage as a ‘holy’ union I feel more favorable to, despite my views on religion. At least I can imagine it’s primarily just about sex, and I do appreciate such honesty, haha.

I’m inclined very much to go with Integral on this matter, though I give a nod to Hurkle so far as the legal definition of marriage is about one man and one woman. Legal don’t make it just, however.

Dayle Record

Nov12-04, 11:02 PM

This world doesn't run for women or children. We do not legislate for the primary good of children. We legislate according to who has the most money and influence. People with huge agendas spend their money raising moral issues, they promise to forward, if only they can have an unlimited credit card for their business venturing. Remember that health standards, EPA standards are set for a 60 year old white male, not for children, or women, or pregnant women.

The ban on gay marriage was a tasty moral tidbit, offered to keep large corporate entities attached to and draining America's jugular vein.

What really amazes me is that gay marriage only affects gays, no one else. There is plenty of evidence to the effect that countries that allow homosexual marriage, and civil unions do not suffer a drop in heterosexual marriage, or an erosion of marriage values.

The homosexual marriage bans are just a post election treat, for vindictive idiots. You should have seen the all white posters in Utah, supporting the gay marriage ban. Beaming blonde families, protecting their beaming blondeness, from the nasty gay would be usurpers of their beaming white heterosexual marriage blondeness. What else did those posters say? There was nothing else to be said.

I do not think there is a reason in the world for a ban on gay marriage.

Integral

Nov12-04, 11:13 PM

I want to slow down about what we decide is ideal for a child's development
Les,

It seems to me that you are only one concerned about this issue. By my standards "ideal" simply is not a condition that can be defined when it comes to raising kids. If all humans could be placed in well defined boxes maybe there would be some merit to this thinking. That is not the case. This issue seems to be a sidetracking of this thread, perhaps you ought to address the topic of the thread.

Back on topic,
I am with Gokul, here no one has posted a single meaningful reason that all committed couples should not be treated the same under the law.

She said that [it is against the bible] and as far as signing a peace of paper she had no problem with it, but as for a priest giving a blessing upon them - that was the problem.
I found this a good explanation.

I do not think that anyone is suggesting that a church need to approve of the marriages. I do not have, nor did I seek, nor do I want, the approval of any religious authority for my marriage ( just in case there is any doubt, it is hetero!). This whole issue is about legal rights. There are many benefits granted to a married couple, from the tax laws to medical insurance, which are denied to committed same sex couples. It is one thing for a church to refuse to marry same sex coulples, it is entirely something else for that same church to encourage its congregation to vote against the same sex marriage. Why should their narrow set of beliefs be forced on others who do not share their religion. The main implications of this matter is not religious, but civil, this country is supposed to separate the two.

Evo

Nov12-04, 11:22 PM

Les, I understand what your concern is. I know the social "norm" was a loving mother and father raising children together. That's no longer the norm.

Children are happily raised by a single parent. They are happily raised by relatives. That could be an aunt and grandmother (two women), or a dad and brother (two men). Do you remember the sitcom on tv Kate & Ali? Two divorced women raising their kids together? They could have been lesbians, would it matter?

I am a single mother, my kids are happy. When my husband lived at home, the kids were miserable.

How the children are raised and how they are cared for is what is important, not the sex or number of people that raise them.

I have read many articles about gay couples adopting "unadoptable" children. Children with AIDS and other terminal diseases and giving them a loving home and great care. These children would have lived their lives in an institution otherwise. They took in and cared for children no heterosexual couple would even consider.

Evo

Nov12-04, 11:26 PM

Back on topic,
I am with Gokul, here no one has posted a single meaningful reason that all committed couples should not be treated the same under the law.

I do not think that anyone is suggesting that a church need to approve of the marriages. I do not have, nor did I seek, nor do I want, the approval of any religious authority for my marriage ( just in case there is any doubt, it is hetero!). This whole issue is about legal rights. There are many benefits granted to a married couple, from the tax laws to medical insurance, which are denied to committed same sex couples. It is one thing for a church to refuse to marry same sex coulples, it is entirely something else for that same church to encourage its congregation to vote against the same sex marriage. Why should their narrow set of beliefs be forced on others who do not share their religion. The main implications of this matter is not religious, but civil, this country is supposed to separate the two.My feelings exactly.

Dayle, I love your posts.

Gokul43201

Nov12-04, 11:38 PM

I say the ONLY important issue of same sex marriage is the child-rearing issue, and everything else is homophobic and/or chauvinistic bull****.

However, this homophobic and/or chauvinistic bull**** seems to be the majority view in at least 11 states (and possibly about 30 more) and seems to also be the political stand of the current administration.

In my opinion, the point of this thread was to discuss this phenomenon : to understand why an overwhelming majority of the population endorses this view.

Dayle Record

Nov12-04, 11:41 PM

Although there isn't enough information to evaluate long-term effects, there are people nonetheless saying "go ahead anyway" out of the desire to make gays and lesbians feel accepted. A noble gesture, but is it what's best?

Gays and Lesbians didn't just happen this week. It is practical, and essential to support issues of human rights. Human rights, is my rights, all of our rights. It is not out of a desire to make gays feel accepted, or nobility, it is a practical application of US citizenship. Did it mention homosexuality in the Constitution ever? If the current administration has its way, it soon will, by the circuitous logic of saying that only women that want to marry men, or vice versa, can do so. Marriage was never mentioned in the constitution either, the first time historically it will be mentioned in that document, will be to deny it to an entire class of citizens.

Les Sleeth

Nov13-04, 12:17 AM

However, this homophobic and/or chauvinistic bull**** seems to be the majority view in at least 11 states (and possibly about 30 more) and seems to also be the political stand of the current administration.

In my opinion, the point of this thread was to discuss this phenomenon : to understand why an overwhelming majority of the population endorses this view.

You caught that before I could delete my post. I was venting. :surprised

However now that I'm back, and whether anyone realized it or not, I was attempting to give a reason "why an overwhelming majority of the population endorses [anti-same sex marriage] view." And the thread's author did ask, "Can anyone here even try to offer an explanation as to why [voting against same-sex marriage] is a good thing . . ."

I don't think most people in that "majority view" know why they are against same sex marriage. All the sympathizers here are so concerned about what's "right" for gays they aren't giving fair consideration to whether or not there might be something real in what appears to only be a knee-jerk reaction by those against same-sex marriage.

Family is a HUGELY important issue for the average, non-intellectual, everyday, go-to-work person -- and that's who's voting down the same sex marriage laws. Family has always meant mom, dad and kids. The people against same sex marriage aren't thinking about all the single parents, runaway kids, divorce rate, etc., they are thinking about what marriage stands for (i.e., "ideally"). Whether they know it or not I say, when voting happens, the "kid" part of the equation is a big part of it for the average person.

But then in conversations like this, all the sympathizers just want to pooh-pooh those concerns even though they don't really know the truth about the long-term effects of same-sex parenting. What are you going to do, pat all the common folk on the head and say "don't bother your little brains about it, we smart guys have it all figured out." Good luck in convincing people with that approach!

russ_watters

Nov13-04, 11:43 AM

Yep, marriage is a committed relationship between two consenting HUMANS. Isn't that a pretty well defined line? Not even close. Setting aside the homosexuality issue, there are a good handful of other issues your definition doesn't cover: for example, what exactly is a "consenting human"? Also, your definition doesn't say anything about polygamy or incest.

See, this is my basic objection to the way the issue is being argued by its proponents: its being argued as if its a simple question and it isn't.If we knew anything, or had any concept of what makes a good parent then we could give classes and bad parenting would end. Now c'mon, that's absurd on at least two levels and you know it: First off, there are parenting classes (and books, and magazines, and classes in school, and psychology research/studies, etc.). Second, someone knowing a good way (note: I didn't say the best way) to do something won't ever eliminate people doing it a bad way. For example: Most people know that the best way to succeed financially in life is by getting a good education so you can get a good career. Does the knowledge of that fact by some result in the end of poverty? Obviously not.

russ_watters

Nov13-04, 11:46 AM

Actually, I have another problem (though similar) with the way proponents argue this issue: Bigots... Besides the simplstic nature of the argument, the implication here is that by calling everyone who disagrees with you a bigot, you don't have to justify your opinion. Sorry, that (clearly, from the result of the referrendums) doesn't cut it.

russ_watters

Nov13-04, 12:13 PM

Ok, so there is a third thing (though similar to the last) about this arguement that annoys me:I don't think most people in that "majority view" know why they are against same sex marriage. All the sympathizers here are so concerned about what's "right" for gays they aren't giving fair consideration to whether or not there might be something real in what appears to only be a knee-jerk reaction by those against same-sex marriage.In this thread, its the other way around. Take that and extend it to most of modern liberalism and you have my reason (and, I expect, the reason of a great many other Republicans) why I am a Republican. If someone expresses an opinion (on a great many subject), no matter how well thought out, liberals seem to have a violent knee-jerk reaction. Its hypocritical! Consider the following two statements:

1. A heterosexual father/mother family is the best envirnoment for raising a child.
2. A homosexual couple can provide a good environment for raising a child.

Both opinions are both reasonable and supportable, and they don't even contradict each other. I, in fact, hold both opinions at the same time.

But it seems that holders of the 2nd opinion in here have a violent knee jerk reaction to holders of the first. To deny that someone can be reasonable and still disagree with you is the ultimate in arrogance and hypocrisy. And as somene else said, you push and I'll shove.

Later, I'll post some excerpts on what the Supreme Court has to say on the matter...

Moonbear

Nov13-04, 01:05 PM

I do not think that anyone is suggesting that a church need to approve of the marriages. I do not have, nor did I seek, nor do I want, the approval of any religious authority for my marriage ( just in case there is any doubt, it is hetero!). This whole issue is about legal rights. There are many benefits granted to a married couple, from the tax laws to medical insurance, which are denied to committed same sex couples. It is one thing for a church to refuse to marry same sex coulples, it is entirely something else for that same church to encourage its congregation to vote against the same sex marriage. Why should their narrow set of beliefs be forced on others who do not share their religion. The main implications of this matter is not religious, but civil, this country is supposed to separate the two.

I think this is the part that was really either misunderstood or intentionally portrayed incorrectly by those opposed to the right for gay couples to marry. Nothing about granting the right to marry was going to force churches to marry these couples, but somehow, this is the impression many of the religious people I have heard speak on the issue have had. Religious groups can still choose who they will marry according to their practices and rituals. Granting the right for gays to marry only would have affected civil marriages...those being performed by a justice of the peace, not by clergy. Just as churches can refuse to marry people who have been previously divorced, or who are not of the same faith, they could continue to refuse to marry gay couples as well. This right would not have impinged upon religious freedom. They were still free to believe those couples would go to Hell if that was their belief. But, they didn't seem to be aware of this. I saw a lot of advertisements and signs prior to the election that were intentionally misleading about this...I guess when those who ARE bigots realize the rest of the people won't agree with them, they resort to misinformation campaigns to trick people into following along, and it seems to have worked.

I also think it was something the gay activists should have focused on, but they didn't. The ads in favor of the amendment focused only on granting equal rights, but didn't clarify the misinterpretations the opposition was spouting. While I realize they want to be able to be married ANYWHERE, it's not realistic to expect all churches to follow along, so they should have addressed this and pointed out the law would not affect church marriages, just civil marriages.

The matter that has become lost in the argument is the primary reason for wanting marriage vs civil unions. In most cases, civil unions have offered pretty much all the same rights as marriage, with one glaring exception...civil unions do not need to be recognized from state to state. So, if a couple is bonded together through a civil union in one state, and they choose to move to another state, perhaps their job is transferred and they have to move, that new state does not need to recognize their union and offer the same benefits they received in the previous state. The reason the marriage issue became an issue in this election is because MA began allowing gay marriage, and if it counted as a real marriage, the laws on the books were going to require states to recognize that marriage regardless if they allowed gay marriage or not, which is a new issue since this was not a concern with civil unions.

At least, as far as I know, the state amendments do not contain wording like the failed Federal amendment had, which would prohibit repealing the amendment. That was the scariest part of the proposed Federal amendment, that wording preventing any future amendment from repealing it. That is entirely against the grain of how the Consititution is supposed to work. There is always supposed to be the option to repeal amendments if the climate, culture, country changes in such a way to realize an amendment was a mistake or no longer makes sense. We need to give the issue more time, let some of the ramifications settle in, and gay couples need to continue to be seen so people realize that they are normal people who just happen to be attracted to others of the same sex more than to those of the opposite sex. Only recently have people been exposed to positive portrayals of gays and lesbians through the media, which may be the only exposure some people get to those lifestyles. For example, Rosie O'Donnell has been a very positive role model. And I think Ellen Degeneres has finally gained some mainstream acceptance once she stopped making her lesbianism the entire focus of her failed sitcom. This positive portrayal will make far more headway than the more extreme activists, who I think have really hurt gay and lesbian progress. Gay pride marches featuring nudity and open-mouthed kissing in public, as tends to happen in places like New York City, are only hurting the cause. I'd be just as repulsed if heterosexuals were doing that, and it sends the wrong message. It has taken a lot of work to start correcting that message that homosexuality is not synonymous with promiscuity. The number of couples coming out and wanting civil unions and marriages is also helping. It will take time for that to sink in because they still have to overcome a lot of old stereotypes, but I think once more people begin to realize that gay couples are not going to be any wilder and crazier or promiscuous than heterosexual couples, then it will be the time to attempt to repeal these amendments.

Moonbear

Nov13-04, 01:27 PM

Consider the following two statements:

1. A heterosexual father/mother family is the best envirnoment for raising a child.
2. A homosexual couple can provide a good environment for raising a child.

Both opinions are both reasonable and supportable, and they don't even contradict each other. I, in fact, hold both opinions at the same time.

The problem I have with the above two statements is they are too generalized. My sister worked for a while as a social worker in a shelter for abused women and their children, changed careers to be a probation officer, and in between worked in a large city hospital emergency room as her field work experience to obtain her master's degree. She has seen the outcomes of some of the worst of human behavior, and has relayed some of those experiences to me. There are definitely situations where a heterosexual father/mother family is NOT the best environment for raising a child, where it is not even a good or acceptable environment, but is the worst possible environment for that child to be in. And, if more gay couples begin having children, through whatever means they use, I predict will we start to see similar situations in those households, where there will be some who will be miserable parents. The only thing that will make it a bit better is it's hard for a gay couple to become accidentally pregnant, so only those who make a conscious decision to want to have and raise a child will find themselves with children. Though, I can't say a gay household will always be a good environment to raise children. Just like there are heterosexual households that are not good environments to raise children, so will be the case with homosexual households.

On the other hand, there indeed also are gay couples, or single people of any sexual orientation, who would make fantastic parents. And in those cases, they may even make BETTER parents than heterosexual couples.

Making a blanket statement that one situation is always best, or better than the other just doesn't fit with reality. Individual situations need be considered.

russ_watters

Nov14-04, 07:48 PM

Making a blanket statement that one situation is always best, or better than the other just doesn't fit with reality. Individual situations need be considered. That's a lot of individual situations to consider. How is it possible to know all of them?

Also, your hypothetical example is a little misleading: are those bad family situations because the parents are heterosexual or were they bad for other reasons?

Smurf

Nov14-04, 10:41 PM

Thats the point russ, its not because of their sexual orientation. Sexual Orientation has absolutely no relation to how well brought up a child is. This is also supportable.

Les Sleeth

Nov14-04, 11:56 PM

Thats the point russ, its not because of their sexual orientation. Sexual Orientation has absolutely no relation to how well brought up a child is. This is also supportable.

Because I seem to have started this issue of child-rearing, let me clear up one thing before retreating silently to the background.

I NEVER said a thing about an whether someone homosexual can be as good of a parent as a heterosexual. Of course they can! My point has been about a certain psychological balance that a male and a female working positively together can provide. I think that balance is rooted in our physiology, the same physiololgy that early on determines our own gender.

Further, it is how the human mating situation turned out. Creation could have made it that there was only one gender that reproduced asexually, or could have made it that the same gender reproduced offspring. But that's not how it worked out. All I have been talking about is abandoning the mother-father ideal and saying, before we have all the facts, that "any" combination of genders is just as good as what nature seems to have decided was best.

Smurf

Nov15-04, 03:26 AM

I think the abandoning of the Mother-Father Ideal is a good thing. We need to end this 'child ownership by the parents'. It's being degressed now and thats a good thing, children need to grow up in the whole community, not just learning what their parents expose them too.

Locrian

Nov15-04, 08:49 AM

The are essentially the same principles that make someone a good (okay, a great) manager.

And since I believe that both men and women can be great managers, why should I believe it requires one of each to parent? I just don't understand the case you are making here. It seems to be one of vague caution against same sex couples raising a child. However, the only evidence given in this thread seems to suggest that same sex couples do just fine, and no one has given even a theoretical reason why two women or two men couldn't raise a child just as well - or at least, if one was given, it didn't register with me.

What's more, I can't figure out how your position on child rearing relates to gay marriage. Do you believe that if you do not allow gay marriage that no children will be raised by same sex couples? What if that then means more single parents?

I appreciate your point of view, but the relation between child rearing and gay marriage seems muddled at best to me.

BobG

Nov15-04, 10:01 AM

It's hard to separate marriage and child rearing. There's a few possible disadvantages to gay parents. In other words, the issue isn't cut and dried.

Ideally, a child will have both a male and female involved in their life (not necessarily the parent).

1. Mother's interaction with the child should be responsive and affectionate. This factor has been found important for the child's social competent, maturity, self-reliance and intellectual competence.

2. Father's interaction with the child should be responsive and affectionate as well. This has been found important for the child's cognitive development.

Another problem that might be seen as an issue:

.... even though older kids may protest, signs of affection between their parents make kids feel secure. "Children need to know that their parents like each other, and that they have a friendship," says Siegel. A kiss hello or goodbye, a hug, a touch on the shoulder or a compliment go a long way to nurturing your own relationship, and they help children develop emotionally. If kids don't routinely witness displays of affection, they tend to "move into the dating world with suspicion," says Siegel. (http://www.parentstages.com/index.a...e.asp%3Fid=1094)

But, there is one other problem with homosexual relationships:

How Can A Stranger Tell If Two People Are Married?

"You might have to guess, based on whether they seem to be yelling at the same kids." - Derrick, age 8

Okay, I'm not really serious about the last one.

When you get down to discussing how families work in practice, vs how they should ideally work, I'm not sure if there's really any appreciable difference. But I can understand why a lot wouldn't want to rush into making gay marriages exactly the equivalent of heterosexual marriages, to include adoption.

But, excluding the child-rearing issue, I agree - how people conduct their personal relationships is no one else's business.

russ_watters

Nov15-04, 10:13 AM

Thats the point russ, its not because of their sexual orientation. Sexual Orientation has absolutely no relation to how well brought up a child is. This is also supportable. No relation at all? That's a pretty absolute assertion for an issue that is so controversial. And its supportable? Then please support it.

Please understand, I'm not saying that not having both a mother and a father will always be worse than having both, I'm simply saying that all else being equal, it is preferable to have both. And yes, this is also supportable:

I'm sure you've heard of single parent families being labeled a "problem." There are two reasons why its a problem. The first is the obvious one: raising a kid is a lot of work and its tough to raise a family and make a living at the same time. The second one is that single-parent families don't have both a mother and a father. I'm sure you've heard that before and finding the support is as easy as Google: MYTH: Children of single parents need role models. The sooner the parent remarries the better.
FACT: [1]Children benefit from the presence of both men and women in their family life [2]provided those men and women are emotionally healthy. Children actually suffer more harms by living with conflict and unhealthy role models than by having one healthy, effective parent. [2]A single parent with good parenting skills can raise children successfully without a partner [or homosexual couple] by building a good support system—a circle of friends, relatives and neighbors. That quote (LINK (http://www.metlife.com/Applications/Corporate/WPS/CDA/PageGenerator/0,1674,P985,00.html)) nicely echoes the two statements I made earlier (highlighted).

Your objection higlights another problem (common in politics): opposite sides aren't always arguing about the same thing and its often possible for both sides to be correct at the same time. You're arguing (mostly) point 2., I'm playing devil's advocate or point 1, but I actually believe both - and they are not mutually exclusive. Les Sleeth mentioned this: I NEVER said a thing about an whether someone homosexual [an individual] can be as good of a parent as a heterosexual [another individual]. And indeed, nor did I.

One thing to be careful of: if you're too closed-minded to see both sides, it can make it look like you are intentionally misrepresenting the other side's position.I think this is the part that was really either misunderstood or intentionally portrayed incorrectly by those opposed to the right for gay couples to marry. Nothing about granting the right to marry was going to force churches to marry these couples, but somehow, this is the impression many of the religious people I have heard speak on the issue have had. Moonbear, I think you're reading that backwards: it isn't that religious people think government will define marriage for their religion, they think that religion should define marriage for government.At least, as far as I know, the state amendments do not contain wording like the failed Federal amendment had, which would prohibit repealing the amendment. That was the scariest part of the proposed Federal amendment, that wording preventing any future amendment from repealing it. That is entirely against the grain of how the Consititution is supposed to work. I hadn't heard that, but I would expect such an amendment would be unconstitutional in its implimentation. So I wouldn't be afraid of such things making it into the Constitution, much less withstanding judicial review.

Locrian

Nov15-04, 10:39 AM

It's hard to separate marriage and child rearing.

Maybe, but that doesn't mean anything in the context of legislating gay marriage. If anyone is suggesting that banning gay marriage will increase the number of children being raised by heterosexual couples, they have provided no evidence for this.

The reason they have provided no evidence is probably because there is none. I can think of no reason why making gay marriage illegal would suddenly cause homosexuals to go out and grab a partner of the opposite sex to help raise their child - at least none that wouldn't be just as applicable with gay marriage legalized.

There hasn't been a reason why gay marriage should be legislated against given in this thread that stands up to common sense.

russ_watters

Nov15-04, 10:44 AM

Maybe, but that doesn't mean anything in the context of legislating gay marriage. If anyone is suggesting that banning gay marriage will increase the number of children being raised by heterosexual couples, they have provided no evidence for this. What about the corollary: legalizing gay marriage certainly will increase the number of children being raised by homosexual couples. That's one of the main reasons people support it!

MORE DOCUMENTATION (http://www.enotes.com/single-parent-families/): Again, this is about single-parent families, but a lot of the points are the same and the tone of the discussion (the article discusses the Dan Quale vs Murphy Brown on single mothers debate) looks very similar. But it has some opinions from sociologists thrown in: Much of the debate over single-parent families focuses on how these trends affect children. Many social scientists contend that children raised in single-parent homes are more likely to experience a variety of problems than are children raised in two-parent homes. According to Lloyd Eby, assistant editor of the World & I magazine, and Charles A. Donovan, a senior policy consultant at the Family Research Council, “The sociological evidence now available shows conclusively that children suffer when they grow up in any family situation other than an intact two-parent family formed by their biological father and mother who are married to each other.” But there is legitimate controversy in the sociology community: “Single parenthood may be correlated with many problems affecting children, but the causes may lie elsewhere—for example, in economic and emotional problems affecting parents that lead to difficulties raising children and greater chances of divorce.” Point being, there is justification for both positions and it is hypocritical and bigoted to knee-jerk label as a bigot anyone who disagrees with your opinion.

Locrian

Nov15-04, 11:22 AM

What about the corollary: legalizing gay marriage certainly will increase the number of children being raised by homosexual couples. That's one of the main reasons people support it!

What about it? I haven't made that argument, and am not sure how it applies. Since you've stated you think homosexual couples can raise a child well, the fact that heterosexual couples can do it better only matters if you can show that, when gay marriage is legalized, children that would have been previously raised by heterosexual couples would then be raised by homosexual ones. Since there is nothing stopping homosexual couples from raising children now, I find it hard to accept any argument based on child rearing reasonings.

After responding to me you went on with your argument against calling people who oppose gay marriage bigots. I realize others have done this in the thread, and since my quote is located next to your argument I feel it reasonable to take the time to state I do not approve of the label and hope I have never implied it. I will certainly take the time to deconstruct arguments I do not find convincing, but this should not be taken as a blanket judge of anyone's morality.

I'd like to consider another statement you made Russ if you don't mind:

it isn't that religious people think government will define marriage for their religion, they think that religion should define marriage for government.

I have two problems with this statement.

First, why start now? Fifteen years ago if two atheists had a non religious ceremony done by a justice of the peace - with their own vows - no one would have objected to calling them a married couple. I know enough of bible texts and the religious ceremony to know that this marriage is not Christian, and yet no one objected to calling them married then.

Secondly, which religion? Can someone only be married under Christianity? If others, where do you draw the line? If there exists a religion that allows homosexual marriage, would you accept that?

In short, I dissagree with the idea that religion should only define marriage for government because I do not believe "religion" has accurately defined marriage, nor applied its definitions even handedly.

BobG

Nov15-04, 01:28 PM

I'd like to consider another statement you made Russ if you don't mind:

it isn't that religious people think government will define marriage for their religion, they think that religion should define marriage for government.

I have two problems with this statement.

First, why start now? Fifteen years ago if two atheists had a non religious ceremony done by a justice of the peace - with their own vows - no one would have objected to calling them a married couple. I know enough of bible texts and the religious ceremony to know that this marriage is not Christian, and yet no one objected to calling them married then.

Secondly, which religion? Can someone only be married under Christianity? If others, where do you draw the line? If there exists a religion that allows homosexual marriage, would you accept that?

In short, I dissagree with the idea that religion should only define marriage for government because I do not believe "religion" has accurately defined marriage, nor applied its definitions even handedly.

I think Russ's statement was an accurate description of a small religious segment of society. There was no protest against two atheists being married by a justice of the peace because their protest would have been laughed out of the room.

I'm just not sure I understand the sentiment of all the voters who approved of the anti-gay amendments, but the motivation of the folks who initiated the amendments is pretty clear. The 'conservative Christians' (Conservative Christian Coalition, for example) saw gay marriage as a vulnerable target.

I don't agree with a lot of what the right wing Christian group is pushing (in fact, I find these guys scary), but I think the impact they're having on the Republican Party is a fact. They've chosen a very pragmatic approach and have taken success where it's achievable: the anti-gay amendments, defeating Alabama's Amendment 2 for 'tax reasons', the California law that made it possible to convict Peterson for murdering his unborn child.

I think your questions are very appropriate. The problem is how many people are actively motivated to protect gay rights unless they see how this might wind up affecting them personally?

russ_watters

Nov15-04, 02:53 PM

What about it? I haven't made that argument, and am not sure how it applies. Since you've stated you think homosexual couples can raise a child well, the fact that heterosexual couples can do it better only matters if you can show that, when gay marriage is legalized, children that would have been previously raised by heterosexual couples would then be raised by homosexual ones. I know you didn't make that argument - I'm trying to make you see both sides. Someone who considers a homosexual-couple family to be a less-than-idea child rearing situation would consider an increase in the number of such families to be a bad thing even if it doesn't decrease the number of heterosexual-couple families. In any case, such an increase probably would also decrease the number of heterosexual-couple families: Since there is nothing stopping homosexual couples from raising children now, I find it hard to accept any argument based on child rearing reasonings. How can you say that? Child custody/adoption matters is one of the primary reasons why homosexual couples would want to be legally married. After responding to me you went on with your argument against calling people who oppose gay marriage bigots. I realize others have done this in the thread, and since my quote is located next to your argument I feel it reasonable to take the time to state I do not approve of the label and hope I have never implied it. I will certainly take the time to deconstruct arguments I do not find convincing, but this should not be taken as a blanket judge of anyone's morality. Fair enough - it was mostly a general rant (though one person did use the label). First, why start now? Fifteen years ago if two atheists had a non religious ceremony done by a justice of the peace - with their own vows - no one would have objected to calling them a married couple. There's a big difference between that and the current situation: that marriage resembles the version you see in religion. It wasn't illegal then and it isn't now. It isn't the ceremony that is important to government, its the structure. Governments have been regulating the structure since this country was founded. Secondly, which religion? Can someone only be married under Christianity? If others, where do you draw the line? If there exists a religion that allows homosexual marriage, would you accept that? See: Polygamy (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=98&invol=145). I meant to pull some excerpts from this this weekend, but in any case, its relevant. Like it or not, this country was founded on Christian ideals and the structure of marriage dictated by law from the time it was founded reflects that. That isn't to say it can't change, but clearly, the majority doesn't want it to.

Dayle Record

Nov15-04, 04:03 PM

This country was founded by gentlemen who paid public homage, or didn't, to biblical teachings, married, and then went on to sire untold numbers of offspring with the slave women that they held. The founders of this nation, were incredibly clever, and The Constitution is a masterpiece. Do not confuse this with any sort of personal moral imperative on their parts, or hundreds of years later rummage through questionable middle eastern history texts, and try to suss out what our Founding Fathers meant. The Constitution is what they meant.

The states determine the age of consent. That varies wildly, Utah polygamists are moving to Texas, where the age of consent, is thirteen. The Utah laws regarding consent are more detailed and stringent that that.

If we can apply ourselves to determining what are our inalienable rights, as regard life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then we will be far ahead.

Our Founding Fathers meant for there to be a strict separation of Church and State, they said so, for very good reason.

Find the victim, and legislate against the crime. If it is illegal for gays to marry, because of questions surrounding their parenting modes, then shall we also sterilize gay people? That is the next step. Shall we incarcerate them, that does still happen, there are laws on the books that make gay behavior illegal.

How can we as a society, realize there is a stable, long standing population of Gay individuals, and ask they they just stay under the rug, and everyone will be more comfortable? How can we rationalize destabilizing their potential for long term happiness, and validation, while decrying the aids epidemic, that exists in every type of "player" population? If schools advocate celibacy until marriage, then are they advocating that gay teens, and young adults, simply stay celibate over their lifetimes?

I think that the gay marriage amendments passed, because of the amazing budget that was available for the RNC to use, to further entirely other political aims. The anti-gay marriage thing, was like an amendment tacked onto a pork barrel bill. In states where the little punch cards are still used, you could symbolically wound the gay people you dislike with the card punch.

The entire defense of marriage ideation, was a way to soften the image of intolerance these amendments present. See, you aren't being a bigot, you are protecting marriage. It is kind of like a "Protecting The Water From Ducks", legislation, that results in an unlimited open hunt, until every last duck is either dead, or relocates to a different pond, in a different nation. This is seriously unfriendly "Duck" legislation.

So, a bunch of people are hurt, so another bunch of people can feel right. Then an entirely different group of people, make a lot of money, and don't care a fig about whether gay people marry or not.

I remind that the children of gay parents, are hurt in this. Gay young people, and gay older people, are hurt in this; so that people can feel right. You have to ask, what is right about denying a life, to people?

Locrian

Nov15-04, 04:37 PM

In any case, such an increase probably would also decrease the number of heterosexual-couple families:

I see no evidence for this. If you want to make me see both sides you will need to not just suggest questions - there is a good chance I've already asked them myself.

How can you say that? Child custody/adoption matters is one of the primary reasons why homosexual couples would want to be legally married.

Those are excellent points. When you ask, "How can you say that?" the only answer I can give is that I typed it out and hit "Submit", much like anyone else. :grumpy:

Custody cases could certainly be an example of something preventing homosexual couples from raising their children now. How often they are ruled against because they are married is not a statistic I know.

I particularly like both examples you gave because they show that the number of homosexual couples rearing children can increase without necessarily reducing the number of heterosexual couples.

There's a big difference between that and the current situation: that marriage resembles the version you see in religion. It wasn't illegal then and it isn't now. It isn't the ceremony that is important to government, its the structure..

How can you say that? Just kidding! ;) Seriously, the first statement is patently untrue. Christian marriages involve God at a very fundamental level. I'm not sure what you could mean by "resembles" but even the appearance of a religionless civil union is very different than a Christian marriage. There are any number of biblical texts that can be used to support this - you probably know more than I.

I'm not sure what you could mean by structure. The structure of a religious marriage is between a man, woman and God. When you say that religion should define marriage for the government, this is the only acceptable structure you could mean. Is removing God from that structure okay, but swapping one of the person's sexes not? How can you justify that?

I still hold that using a "heterosexual child rearing is superior to homosexual child rearing" argument against gay marriage holds no water, and that trying to define marriage in religious terms is a selective ploy that has recently been made that has little real meaning.

Thank you for your responses

Moonbear

Nov15-04, 06:18 PM

Evidence from the current literature suggests that having two parents of the opposite sex present isn't sufficient to explain the positive effects of growing up in a household with married parents. Instead, it seems to be the traits of those people that leads them to seek a marriage that makes them the better parents. This has two implications in the current administration's policies: 1) pushing single parents to get married isn't likely to improve the upbringing of their children if they don't really want to get married, and 2) homosexuals who want to get married just might make as good of parents as heterosexual parents who are married (until they are allowed to marry, we can't really find the answer to this second possibility).

All of the following quotes are from the same source (it's a lengthy article, and I've tried to extract the essence, but I recommend reading it in its entirety if you have access to the journal).
Aronson, SR and Huston, AC
The Mother–Infant Relationship in Single, Cohabiting, and Married
Families: A Case for Marriage?
Journal of Family Psychology
2004, Vol. 18, No. 1, 5–18

If family structure differences in child outcomes are primarily a function of relatively
stable characteristics that lead mothers to select into different family types, then marriage would not be likely to change the course of parenting and developmental outcomes for those individuals. If, however, the differences stem primarily from the consequences of marriage, then inducing parents to marry might result in improvements that could benefit children.

Research Questions
In the present study, we addressed three major questions:
(a) Are there differences among single-mother, cohabiting,
and married families in the mother–infant relationship,
quality of the home environment, or security of attachment
in the first 15 months of life? (b) Are there differences
among single-mother, cohabiting, and married families in
selection factors and potential mediators of marital status?
Do partner relationships differ for mothers in cohabiting and
married families? and (c) Which, if any, maternal and
family characteristics help explain family structure variations
in mother–child relationships and the quality of the
home environment?

Discussion
In this study, we sought to extend our understanding of
the relationship between family structure and child outcomes
by comparing married, cohabiting, and single-mother
families on the quality of the mother–infant relationship and
the home environment in the first 15 months of life. The
findings suggest that the relationship between mothers and
their infants does differ—and it differs on the basis of not
only single- versus two-parent family structure but also
marital status. Much, but not all, of the difference associated
with family structure is accounted for by selection factors:
maternal age, education, and ethnic group.
Married women and infants had more positive relationships
and better home environments than did their single or
cohabiting counterparts, whereas single and cohabiting families
did not differ. Married women behaved more positively
toward their infants, they created more positive home environments,
and their infants behaved more positively toward
them than was the case for either cohabiting or single
women at both times of measurement. Infants of married
women were also more likely to be securely attached than
were children of single women.

The findings of this study suggest that infants in cohabiting
families experience an early mother–child relationship
and home environment more like that in single-mother
families than that in married families. The cohabiting mothers
also were more similar to single mothers than to married
mothers on the selection variables, psychological adjustment,
and resources. Some advantage for cohabiting families
in comparison with single mothers was suggested by the
fact that the cohabiting women behaved more positively
toward their infants at 15 months and, although most aspects
of the home environment did not differ, a father’s presence
added some opportunities for adult contact. Cohabiting families
also had higher incomes than did single-mother families.
The patterns for cohabiting families were somewhat
surprising, especially because in this sample, 90% of the
cohabiting partners were the fathers of the children. Clearly,
the mere presence of both parents in the home does not lead
these families to resemble married families in many
respects.

Gokul43201

Nov15-04, 07:04 PM

If the only contention is with child rearing, why not (and please don't jump on me, y'all) ban same-sex adoption, instead of same-sex unions altogether?

Russ, do you have any objection other than this ? And I'd love to see some of the Supreme Court arguments you mentioned.

Les Sleeth

Nov15-04, 07:06 PM

If the only contention is with child rearing, why not (and please don't jump on me, y'all) ban same-sex adoption, instead of same-sex unions altogether?

Well, that's what I've been implying, at least until we understand this situation better.

Dayle Record

Nov15-04, 09:51 PM

At last a study, of at least one facet of this gem of a thread.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996670

Evo

Nov15-04, 10:47 PM

Les, you know that I admire you, but hear me out. I was raised by my mother (my father worked in South America and we only saw him a few days a year). I am heterosexual, as are my two sisters and brother. I have raised my two girls pretty much alone, they are heterosexual. I don't believe that the absence of a mother or father has any influence on a child's sexuality.

Evo

Nov15-04, 11:08 PM

Here's a new article on same sex parents.

Teens With Same-Sex Parents Well-Adjusted

MONDAY, Nov. 15 (HealthDayNews) -- Adolescents who have two moms as parents are no different from teens growing up with a mother and a father, a new study finds.

On measures of psychosocial well-being, school functioning, and romantic relationships and behaviors, the teens with same-sex parents were as well adjusted as their peers with opposite-sex parents. The authors found very few differences between the two groups. A more important predictor of teens' psychological and social adjustment, they found, is the quality of the relationships they have with their parents.

"This is the first study that has looked at adolescents with same-sex parents in a national sample, and it shows clearly across a wide range of variables that they're doing pretty well," said study author Charlotte J. Patterson, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.

The research, published in the November issue of Child Development, draws data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, a school-based study of the health-related behaviors of kids in grades 7-12.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=97&ncid=97&e=7&u=/hsn/20041115/hl_hsn/teenswithsamesexparentswelladjusted

arildno

Nov16-04, 10:30 AM

One should be very wary of what so-called sociologists/psychologists say about what sort of unions are "proper" for raising a child.

For example, at the beginnning of the 1900's there were quite a few psychologists who meant that to be born out of wedlock was inherently damaging for the child, and they had lots of evidence/correlations to back up this silly claim with.

There has been much confusion over whether a correlation is indicative of a cause/effect relationship, or merely the result of a common cause.

As Evo's post indicates, we have come a few steps closer towards identifying a proper cause/effect-relationship at the beginning of the 2000's:

"A more important predictor of teens' psychological and social adjustment, they found, is the quality of the relationships they have with their parents."

Although one may raise the objection as to what is the cause and what is the effect here (poor relationship quality might cause poor adjustment, but, conversely, poor adjustment may well deteriorate the relationship between parent&child), this correlation seems to me at least, to be of a more permanent character/lasting relevance than the relationship between social adjustment and some preconceived, narrow idea about what a "good rearing environment" should be.