NOM BLOG

Maine Voices: Questions on Same-Sex Parenting Cast Doubt on Same-Sex Marriage

 

Keith Moore in the Portland Herald Press:

"...I appeal to the intuition and experience of the people of the great state of Maine. I know this about you. You are men and women committed to your children. You are serious parents. May I propose that there is not enough data for us to safely conclude that children thrive in households with same-sex parents?Far too little is known about this new household form. For this reason alone, and for our children's sake, doesn't it make sense to wait before we institutionalize same-sex marriage?

To this point, the data shows that the safest place for a kid is in a household with a mom and dad. Common sense dictates that every child should be mentored every day with both male and female influences. Mainers United for Marriage consistently claims that they have 30 years of research on their side. Do they?

Every study has weaknesses, but here are the two weaknesses I see with these studies. First, most of this research is based on samples too small to detect genuine differences that may exist in children raised in opposite-sex partnerships versus same-sex parents; and second, much of this research is based on self-selected pools of volunteers, not a random, unbiased look at the entire population of same-sex parents."

... Mainers should vote "no" based on the serious questions that remain concerning the impact of same-sex parenting on children.

...In my opinion, this is not about kids and wanting to protect them at all. It's about adults asking the state to affirm their relationship choices. As people who care about children, Mainers must vote "no" on Question 1."

16 Comments

  1. Layne
    Posted November 2, 2012 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

    "First, most of this research is based on samples too small to detect genuine differences that may exist in children raised in opposite-sex partnerships versus same-sex parents."

    --- Oh, that's cute. But when Regnerus (whom Moore cites by name) studied TWO people who'd been raised by same-sex parents, your side was overwhelmingly claimed that ALL children raised by same-sex parents were doomed to lives of failure and crime.

    Unless Moore is willing to outlaw divorce and single parenthood I'm afraid he (and you) have absolutely no argument, which isn't exactly breaking news..

  2. Randy E King
    Posted November 2, 2012 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    What is it with marriage corruption supporters and their insistence of referencing divorce as though it were all the justification they needed to destroy the natural intent of marriage?

    It's as if their primary rational is the belief that what they are demanding the right to do is just as bad as what others have done.

  3. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted November 2, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    The foundation of any child living in a same-sex environment is the lie that it's biologically possible for that child to have two chicks or two dudes as parents. Perhaps if the lie is perpetuated for long enough the child might adopt it as her own, at least for a while. It's still a lie.

    Children are not pets, at least to most of us.

  4. Layne
    Posted November 2, 2012 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

    Barb, please find me ONE quote from ANY gay or lesbian in this country who's EVER said that it's biologically possible for two men or two women to procreate.

    There goes Straw Man # 1.

    Same-sex couples have children through the use of donors and surrogates (as straight couples and single parents have done for decades) or they adopt the children that are abandoned by their biological mother and father (or given up by their teenaged parents).

    Would you prefer those children stay in the foster care system as opposed to being adopted by loving and affluent same-sex couples?

  5. Ash
    Posted November 2, 2012 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    "Barb, please find me ONE quote from ANY gay or lesbian in this country who's EVER said that it's biologically possible for two men or two women to procreate."

    If they are demanding that the government "presume" that a woman is the second parent of another woman's child simply because they are in a sexual relationship, then it appears that they believe that it's possible for same-sex persons to engender children. They are fighting to do this all over the country, but you can research some of the lesbian parentage cases, namely the couple in Iowa which sued the Dept. of Health because they didn't automatically list a mother's "wife" on the child's birth certificate as the second parent.

    Do your reading before you come to challenge people on an opposing forum.

    "Unless Moore is willing to outlaw divorce and single parenthood I'm afraid he (and you) have absolutely no argument, which isn't exactly breaking news.."

    No one is trying to "outlaw" same-sex relationships either, so there is no reason for marriage supporters--who believe that children should be raised by their mother and father--to outlaw single-parent and divorced families. Speaking of strawmans...

  6. M. Jones
    Posted November 2, 2012 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

    Layne, given the horrific outcomes identified in the Regenerus NFSS peer reviewed study, most comprehensive and scientifically valid study to date) why would you want to expose children to sexual abuse and other horrific outcomes when exposed to same sex relationships? Both the University and publisher have validated the peer review process and the common sense findings and conclusions of this research. Children are not a social experiment for homosexuals to amuse themselves with, nor are they fashion accessories or pets.

  7. Layne
    Posted November 2, 2012 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    "No one is trying to "outlaw" same-sex relationships either, so there is no reason for marriage supporters--who believe that children should be raised by their mother and father--to outlaw single-parent and divorced families. Speaking of strawmans..."

    Well you're the ones who say (over and over and over) that children need a mother and a father, completely ignoring the sky-high divorce and illegitimacy rate in this country...

    And how wonderful for you to reduce loving and committed same-sex couples to mere "sexual relationship." You don't have a bias or anything, do you?

    "No one is trying to 'outlaw' same-sex relationships either,..."

    Tell that to your closeted friend OvercameSSA, who posts here often, and wants SCOTUS to overturn L v. Tex. Yes, he's in such embittered misery because of his forced conversion that he doesn't want any other gay men to be happy either...

  8. Layne
    Posted November 2, 2012 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

    M Jones, as has been pointed out to you over and over in these comments, Regnerus studied TWO people who were raised by same-sex couples. TWO.

    The rest of the people who fell into the categories of "Lesbian Mom" or "Gay Dad" were parents who at one point or another in their lives had a same-sex encounter or relationship.

    That's not a repudiation of same-sex couples. It's a repudiation of gay men like Alan Chambers, John Smid, Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, John Paulk, George Rekers, and NOMBlog regulars OvercameSSA and Randy King who all went the "ex-gay" route and married women while burying their true innate feelings.

    Even Dawn Stefanowicz, whose writings have inexplicably been held up as a cautionary tale against same-sex parenting, even though she herself was raised by a mother and a (gay) father.

    Regnerus didn't study gay families. He studied dysfunctional families.

    I know you're going to insist that the study says something that it doesn't, which is why I can't wait for your ilk to try to enter the study into the next few DOMA cases. Watch how quickly it gets destroyed under cross-examination.

  9. Ash
    Posted November 2, 2012 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    “Well you're the ones who say (over and over and over) that children need a mother and a father, completely ignoring the sky-high divorce and illegitimacy rate in this country...”

    Marriage supporters are not ignoring the problems of divorce and illegitimacy (which, by the way, shouldn’t be of concern to people who believe that children don’t need a mother and father, and that marriage is a pretty label for relationships with no intrinsic connection to procreation).

    “And how wonderful for you to reduce loving and committed same-sex couples to mere "sexual relationship." You don't have a bias or anything, do you?”

    Oh please. That’s what the entire argument for ssm is based on: mere sexual relationship. There is a portion of the population that allegedly can’t form a sexual relationship with the opposite sex, and so we are obligated to redefine marriage so that this group can get accolades for being attracted to the same sex.

    Even still, you misrepresented my post. I didn’t say that same-sex couples merely have sexual relationships. I said that the pro-ssm lobby wants us to automatically re-write the parentage of certain children—pretending that they don’t have a father, but instead “two mothers”—merely because the two women in the same-sex partnership are in a sexual relationship. A woman’s sister, mother, female best friend, what have you, cannot usurp the parental status of a father simply because she is close to the mother and has a meaningful relationship with her. Yet SSMers propose that lesbian “co-parents” be allowed to do this because they are in a sexual relationship.

  10. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 2, 2012 at 10:20 pm | Permalink

    The public has no compelling interest in licensing & regulating homosexual behavior.

  11. M. Jones
    Posted November 2, 2012 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

    "Regnerus didn't study gay families. He studied dysfunctional families." Exactly the common sense finding, he studied what he found, to wit: "dysfunctional family structures."

  12. Chairm
    Posted November 3, 2012 at 11:36 pm | Permalink

    Layne, what has same-sex sexual behavior got to so with the type of family structure that you would want studies so as to fulfill your own strongly implied standard that the sample size be larger?

    Your comments do suggest that same-sex sexual behavior is irrelevant. Yes?

    Okay. Now please describe the defining characteric(s) for the larger ample you'd propose.

    There is a very large volume of research on childraising scenarios that are one-sexed but not sexualized. Would you exclud any of that much larger pool? Why?

    Ther is a mountain of research on childraising scenarios that are not intact married mom-dads. Some sexualzized and some not ... but such a distinction would be irrelevant, anyway, you have strongly implied. Please clarify.

    What,if any, portion of this wide range of scenarios would you exclude from this larger pool for the sake of studying the subset that would meet your favored defining characteristic(s)? Why?

    It does come through your comments that you think the sample should entail children adopted from fostercare. There is loads of research on such scenarios. Again, what if any of that pool would you exclude and why?

    Likewise for children born of artificial reproduction technologies (ARTs) and IVF. What, if any, of the large pool would you exclude and why?Please note that the vast majority (91%) of married people who partake of such services do not go outside of their relationship to attain gametes to attain children. Of the very small subset that do go outside, one in three mix their own gametes with those of the so-called "donor". Perhaps you meant to narrow the use of ARTs/IVF to that tiny subset of that very small subset. That would make sense but please confirm, correct, or clarify.

    But, of course, you acknowledged that no one-sexed scenario is procreative because, obviously, it cannot engage in procreative type sexual behavior. Same-sex sexual behavior is irrelevant to procreation, you already made clear. So it must be irrelevant to defining your proposed large sample. Which you have conceded, implicitly, is irrelevant to selecting the participants in that larger sample.

    It follows rather closely that all of the same-sexed subset (the lone individual, the twosome, the threesome, or a parade of individuals of the same sex) cannot be infertile since fertilityis two-sexed and not one-sexed nor sex-neutral. The nonfertility of the one-sex-short subset is intrinsic to the entire category.

    On this point, sexualization of the one-sex-short scenario is clearly irrelevant, as you already made clear was forefront in your thinking. However, for the two-sexed scenarios this sexualization is relevant. Indeed, infertility is diagnosed after lots and lots of sexual attempts to concieve and procreate. And infertility is a disabling of fertility whereas there is no ability disabled in the one-sex-short category for its nonfertility is intrinsic and precludes fertility.

    About half of married couples who experience infertility already have children. And of these infertile married couples, most resolve their troubles through changes in behavior rather than use of ARTs/IVF with 'donor' gametes. They usually do not remain infertile.

    Not the same defining characteristic, obviously, as the one-sex-short category.

    But, if going outside the relationship is key, then, you'd point outside of marriage, anyway, because this would be extramarital procreation even when married people partake of it.

    Anyway, sexual behavior is an irrelevant criterion, your comment suggested, so what is definitive of the larger sample you have in mind?

    If gay identity is the key, and some other stuff you have yet to specify, you might acknowledge how very, very, very rare such gay-identified childraising scenarios are. More than 90% of the adlt homosexual population does not reside in same-sex households(censu term for presumptively sexualized relationships between householder and adult in the household). And more than 97% of the adult homosexual population does not reside in such households with children resident. And of that very small suset that do, the vast majority of the children were not adopted nor attained via ARTs/IVF. You would narrow the already very small sample to less than 5% of 3% of the adult homosexual population.

    That's, at best, would be 0 .0015 percent of the adult homosexual population.

    From that miniscule subset, what other defitive criteria would you propose to narrow down the large sample you would expect researchers to find and study in a randomized longitudinal effort that is social-scientifically sound?

    But, you know what, before you get too carried away with your cliched criticism of the available soc ial scientific evidence, you would need to justify the effort to study your propose structural features in your propose large sample. What is the social-scientific narrative for doing what you say Regenrus did not do?

  13. Chairm
    Posted November 3, 2012 at 11:43 pm | Permalink

    Given the attention that Layne has invested of himself in making his earlier comments, readers mightly fairly expect Layne to respond substantively to my query. Indeed, Layne's credibility is on the line because he put it on the line. He took the iniative and the onus is now clearly on Layne.

  14. Chairm
    Posted November 4, 2012 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

    One day later ... ?

  15. Chairm
    Posted November 6, 2012 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

    Three days ... ?

  16. Chairm
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 6:34 am | Permalink

    A week and still no substantive response.