An article posted in the new newsgroup "Gay Pride and Friendship"

For further articles like the one below and for gay discussion, please
visit my newsgroup:

Gay Pride and Friendship

URL
http://groups.google.com/group/Gay-Pride-and-Friendship

Welcome to a gay friendly newsgroup which includes discussion and
informative articles relating to gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgendered issues.

Opinions are certainly welcome and disagreement is part of anything in
life. Please stay respectful to those you do not agree with. No flames
please.


News By Us, not news bias

The Conservative Debate on Gay Marriage

Several weeks ago, I penned an article titled, “Ray Flynn is Wrong
About Same Sex Marriage”. Flynn, the former mayor of Boston and
former Ambassador to the Vatican, is one of the principals who is
supporting a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage in
Massachusetts. In this article, I challenged Flynn’s assertion that
children are best raised in a loving family by a mother and father. I
argued that even with a loving mother and father there is no guarantee
that a child will live a healthy, productive life. Moreover, I
questioned Flynn’s assumption that parents of the same sex are
inherently incompetent and incapable of raising children. I stated that
I could not support a ban of gay marriage in Massachusetts unless Flynn
could demonstrate that same sex parents were inherently inappropriate
and incompetent to raise children.

I realize that amongst self described conservatives my position is in
the minority. I did not have any illusions that this position would go
without challenge and I was not disappointed. Enter Dennis Durband. He
has written a rebuttal to my article titled, “Unappointed
‘Counsel’ for Flynn Provides Powerful Case against Same-Sex
‘Marriage’ Parenting” and it can be found on his website at
www.americonservative.com/Rebuttal_Goldstein.htm

Before I address the substance of Durband’s article let me praise him
for his civility. He brought his article to my personal attention and
he has written a spirited article. Yet he has done so without rancor.
Given the emotionalism and sensitivity of the subject matter that is
not easily done. I hope I am able to do the same. I believe that there
is enough room in conservative political thought to have a reasonable
debate on the intricacies of same sex marriage.

Durband’s central problem with my argument is that I rely on
anecdotal rather than empirical information. He writes, “It is
dangerous to use “always” and “never” words, but there are
times when those terms are appropriate. Advocates of same-sex
marriage/parenting/adoption always use anecdotal points to support
their claims and never look at the social science research
available.”

Well, not quite.

Earlier this month, Dr. Ellen C. Perrin, a professor of pediatrics at
Tufts University School of Medicine in Medford, Massachusetts (just
outside Boston) presented a paper concerning children raised in
heterosexual and same sex households at the American Academy of
Pediatrics Conference and Exhibition in Washington, D.C. Her paper
analyzed 15 studies conducted over the past quarter century. These
studies examined social stigma, self esteem, sexual orientation and
gender identity. Dr. Perrin concluded that there is little difference
between children who grow up in heterosexual households and those who
grow up in same sex households. Dr. Perrin remarked, “Some studies
showed that single heterosexual parents’ children have more
difficulties than children who have parents of the same sex. They did
better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial
difficulties at home and at school.”



Durband is therefore incorrect to assert that advocates who support
same sex marriage never look at the social science research available.
In retrospect, Durband ought to have followed his own advice with the
use of the word never.

Now in fairness to Durband one can certainly question the validity of
Dr. Perrin’s study and the studies on which her findings were based.
Durband cites a number of different studies that support his assertion
that children are not well served by same sex parents. Indeed, Durband
cites several studies from the Family Research Council (FRC). One of
these studies titled “Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at
Risk” by Dr. Timothy J. Dailey was released in October 2001.

Dr. Dailey, a Senior Fellow with the FRC’s Senior Fellow at the
Center for Marriage and Family Studies, acknowledges that there have
been studies that have concluded same sex parenting to have a positive
impact on children. However, he questions sample size, self
presentation bias and a lack of random sampling. With respect to a lack
of random sampling, Dr. Dailey observes that the subjects were in the
same geographical area, were Caucasian and were upper middle class and
thus not representative of that particular population. These are
legitimate criticisms with respect to the methodology employed by those
who have conducted studies concluding that same sex parenting is good
for children.

However, Dr. Dailey damages his own objectivity when he writes that
these studies are “driven by political agendas instead of an
objective search for truth. In addition, openly lesbian researchers
sometimes conduct research with an interest in portraying homosexual
parenting in a positive light.”

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I am not discounting Dr.
Dailey’s assertion that studies in support of same sex marriage and
parenting are driven in part by politics. Any study whose objective,
methodology and conclusions are driven by politics should be viewed
with scrutiny and skepticism. But let’s be clear. Dr. Dailey
represents an organization which is hostile to the notion of
homosexuality never mind same sex marriage and parenting. To suggest
that Dr. Dailey and by extension the FRC do not have their own agenda
and are only seeking “an objective search for truth” is simply
disingenuous.

Dr. Dailey wrote another paper for the FRC that Durband did not cite
titled, “Homosexuality and Children: The Impact for Future
Generations”. The following passage (which can be found at
www.frc.org/get.cfm?=FP02K) comes off more as a polemic than it does an
objective search for the truth:

The Family Research Council believes that the pro-homosexual movement
does have a significant impact on children—and that the impact is
clearly harmful.

At the very least, children are being subjected to pro-homosexual
brainwashing designed to mold the attitudes of the next generation –
in defiance of the moral and religious values of society and of their
own parents, if necessary. Furthermore, by placing children under the
influence of homosexual teachers, mentors, and even adoptive parents,
society not only undermines the traditional family values that promote
healthy child development, but it also increases the chances that
children will end up adopting the destructive homosexual lifestyle.

The last sentence is really the crux of the matter. Dr. Dailey and the
FRC fear that America’s children will become gay. The Merriam-Webster
Online Dictionary as an “irrational fear of, aversion to, or
discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.” If the above
passage is not a demonstration of homophobia then nothing is. Dr.
Dailey is perfectly right to challenge the biases of those who conduct
studies that conclude gay marriage and parenting is good for children
be it Dr. Perrin or anyone else. However, in so doing, he fails to
acknowledge his own biases and that of his organization. Or put another
way, openly heterosexual researchers sometimes conduct research with an
interest in portraying homosexual parenting in a negative light.

Durband does cite studies other than the ones originating from the FRC.
One of them was a from a study conducted by Phyllis Bronstein, an
Emertia Professor of Psychology at the University of Vermont. Professor
Bronstein conducted the study of 136 fifth grade children and their
families in Vermont, both traditional and nontraditional. She found
that boys from nontraditional families had amongst other things a lower
self-concept, poorer behavior in the classroom and lower grade point
averages. She also found that girls from nontraditional families to be
less popular with their peers.

With respect to the unpopularity of girls from nontraditional families
let’s for argument’s sake accept those findings. Is the lack of
popularity from their peers necessarily a reflection of their
parents’ caretaking abilities or appropriateness as caretakers? The
unpopularity of girls from non traditional families amongst their peers
might say more about their peers than about the girls themselves. It
does not take much for children to single out a child in disdain. A
child can be ostracized because of physical appearance, a lack of
athletic skills or exceptional intellectual ability.

Let us also consider that the study cited by Durband was published in
1993. In 2000, Vermont became the first State in the Union to recognize
civil unions. Let’s assume for a moment that the girls were in fact
unpopular became they came from nontraditional or same sex households.
It is possible as we approach 2006 that attitudes have changed to the
degree that coming from a nontraditional household does not have the
same stigma it once might have.

Durband also raises studies that examine both the stability and the
fidelity of same sex relationships. For instance, Durband cites a Dutch
study that same sex relationships amongst men in Holland last an
average of 18 months and have an average of eight partners a year
outside the relationship. By contrast, two thirds of heterosexual
marriages in the United States last more than a decade. Well, maybe.
Curiously, Durband omitted the fidelity of married heterosexual
couples. He also did not mention the stability of same sex
relationships in America. Is it the same as in Holland? Or isn’t it?
If it isn’t, Durband might very well be comparing apples to tulips.

While it might be true that same sex relationships, especially amongst
men, might be unstable it must also be remembered the same sex marriage
has not been with us for an especially long time. Andrew Sullivan, the
openly gay conservative pundit, was amongst the very first to call for
gay marriage. In his 1989 article, “Here Comes the Groom” which
appeared in The New Republic and can be found at
www.andrewsullivan.com/homosexuality.php, Sullivan argues that the
legalization of gay marriage would act as a bulwark against infidelity
and ought to be supported by conservatives:

Legalizing gay marriage would offer homosexuals the same deal society
now offers heterosexuals: general social approval and specific legal
advantages in exchange for a deeper and harder-to-extract-yourself-from
commitment to another human being. Like straight marriage, it would
foster social cohesion, emotional security, and economic prudence.
Since there’s no reason gays should not be allowed to adopt or be
foster parents, it could also help nurture children. And its
introduction would not be some sort of radical break with social
custom. As it has become more acceptable for gay people to acknowledge
their loves publicly, more an more have committed themselves to one
another for life in full view of their families and friends. A law
institutionalizing gay marriage would merely reinforce a healthy social
trend. It would also, in the wake of AIDS, qualify as a genuine public
health measure. Those conservatives who deplore promiscuity among some
homosexuals should be among the first to support it. Burke could have
written a powerful case for it.

More than sixteen years have passed since Sullivan wrote those words.
While a few conservatives have warmed to the idea a majority remained
opposed. Sullivan expressed his exasperation with conservatives on his
blog on October 27, 2005 while commenting on Pennsylvania Senator Rick
Santorum’s book It Takes a Family:

I just read Rick Santorum’s book about conservatism and the “common
good”. It’s better than I expected and has many pages devoted to
excluding gay couples from civil marriage. But again: I could find no
practical, constructive suggestion from Santorum on what he believes
should be our civil policy towards gay couples. Should they be deterred
from settling down? Should they be encouraged to make faithful
commitments? Should their households, when they include offspring, be
legally protected? Silence. Nada. Zip. The “common good” does not
include gay people or their kids. For much of the social right,
homosexuals simply do not exist. Our reality is so threatening to them
that they cannot even begin to construct a viable social policy towards
us. And that’s why they’re losing this debate. In many ways, they
haven’t even joined in.

Not only do many conservatives not want gay marriage but many still
view homosexuality as an illness or sexual disorder that can be cured.
The mission of organizations such as Exodus International and the
National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)
is to free people from homosexuality through a combination of
rehabilitation and religion. It is not unusual to see advertisements
from such organizations in respected conservative magazines such as
Commentary (to which, incidentally, I am a subscriber). If a critical
mass of conservatives believe that homosexuality is a tendency that can
be withered away it is not a sign that they are inclined to support
same sex marriage anytime in the foreseeable future.

After Durband completes his overview of the studies he has read, he
advises me to take into consideration the story of one Dawn
Stefanowicz. The American Family Association Journal published Ms.
Stefanowicz’s speech before a marriage rally that took place on
Parliament Hill in Ottawa this past April and can be found at
www.afajournal.org/2005/august/805Stefanowicz.asp Stefanowicz recounts
her life growing up in Toronto raised by her father and his various
male lovers. She said that she was neglected by her father as he would
leave for days at a time with his male lovers and when he was present
he was under the influence of alcohol and drugs. Stefanowicz stated
that she was also sexually molested although she is not clear if the
molestation was done by her father or by his lovers or a combination of
both. Her father died of AIDS in 1991.

There is no question that Stefanowicz had a troubled childhood. A
troubled childhood, however, is not sufficient grounds under which to
bar same sex couples from rearing children. May I remind Mr. Durband
that I once worked at a child abuse hotline. I wrote reports concerning
children who suffered physical and sexual abuse as well as neglect from
their parents and caretakers. Many of these children had to be removed
from their homes for their own protection. Nearly all the reports I
took concerned families that had caretakers who were heterosexual. But
I would never entertain the idea that heterosexual couples are
inherently unable to raise children. To do so would be fallacious. It
is equally fallacious to conclude that because Stefanowicz was abused
in a same sex household that all children in a same sex household would
be treated in a equally cruel manner.

Durband concludes by arguing, “redefining marriage not only devalues
it and also diminishes the rights of children and robs them of their
full potential. Children have a fundamental right to a mother and a
father. When children are robbed of these rights, there are negative
social consequences for communities of taxpayers.”

Is Durband suggesting that a child who grows up in a same sex household
cannot be an outstanding student, an excellent athlete or a model
citizen? If children have a fundamental right to a mother and father is
Durband suggesting that the State rip a child from the arms of a newly
widowed parent in too much grief and pain to contemplate remarriage? I
would like to think that this is not the case yet his statements
suggest that such is the case.

I do appreciate Durband’s efforts to enlighten me with regard to the
information that suggests that children ought not to be raised by same
sex couples. However, this information ultimately serves the agenda of
the individual and/or organization undertaking the study and not the
child. This is true on both sides of the question and why I avoided it
when I wrote about Ray Flynn.

Anecdotal information might not always be reliable. My personal
judgment is certainly not always objective. Then again neither is
Durband’s judgment. Nor Dr. Dailey. Nor Dr. Perrin. Nor Stefanowicz.
Nor Ray Flynn. Nor anyone else. Yet our judgment is something we must
exercise everyday of our lives for better or for worse. It is something
we must from time to time reserve but cannot withhold indefinitely.
Sometimes it is all we have to guide us.

I concluded my article on Ray Flynn by asking if Flynn had ever met a
child raised by a same sex couple and if he had would he tell that
child that he or she would be better off being raised by someone else.
I pose the same questions to Dennis Durband. Do you personally know of
a child that has been raised by a same sex couple? If you do know such
a child would you tell that child that he or she would be better off
being raised by someone else?

Let me pose two more questions to Durband. I hope that he will take
them in the spirit in which they are intended. If you were to tell a
child raised by a same sex couple that he or she would be better off
being raised by someone else what good would come of it? How does that
act in the best interest of the child?

ω ω ω ω ω

Posted by: Aaron Goldstein on October 30, 2005

http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=457_0_1_0_M

.

Loading