[quote]ZEB wrote:
guerriere wrote:
Oh, you people and your 5000 year old institution. You need to read a bit of cultural and social history, including that of the ancient Hebrews. This traditional marriage you keep babbling about is one of those historical fallacies. The nuclear family is a fairly recent and artificial invention.
5000 years ago people married cousins, sisters, multiple partners, people they didn’t love, through political arrangement, etc. The point is marriage changes throughout history and from culture to culture. In fact some societies didn’t see the point of a man being able to essentially own the woman/women he called wives.
All true however you can never point to any time in history where homosexual marriage was sanctioned by any authority of repute!
For queers in history, there are a few wall panels from Sumerian archeological sites that depict man-on-man, girl-on-girl and boy-on-girl sex. The one with the man and woman doin’ it doggy style while drinking beer through long straws is my personal favorite.
But please, enough with the exclusive marriage club. I mean really, get over it.
Yes, there are plenty of drawings on walls. Some of them show sexual positions others show men fighting, still others beheadings, some drinking blood etc. so what?
Are we to take this as meaning everything that was written on walls should be repeated?
What’s the point really?
(Anyone ever see a Gay wedding on an ancient wall?)
[/quote]
ZEB,
You truly are excellent at misconstruing and misunderstanding. You probably still think I’m a gay man, don’t you? If you were a close observer, you’d know different. The question was asked about representations of gay people in history and I just pointed out that at least as far back as Sumer, there were depictions of people engaging in homosexual behavior. And just to help you out a little, marriage was not and is not defined the same way the world over and throughout history.
I applaud your expert use of straw man arguments. Bravo and huzzah.
And what’s to stop you folks from adding another constitutional amendment regarding gay people’s rights once you get the first one passed? Hitler started small and as far as I’m concerned, those who are fighting to prevent gay people from being able to marry, are pretty much of a kind with Nazis. The hatred and vitriol are there and come through clearly whether you deny it or not.
Working from what?s now ?a considerable body of research on the subject,? writes Charlotte J. Patterson, professor of developmental psychology at the University of Virginia, ?Not a single study has found children of lesbian and gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children?s psychosocial growth.?
That?s why in July, the American Psychological Association concluded, ?Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents,? and voted to support such families having access to marriage.
The Measure 36 mailer cites one researcher, Kyle Pruett, a Yale child psychiatrist. Thursday, Pruett responded, ?It is a distortion of my position. . . . I was quite surprised, even a little dumbfounded to see my name listed.?
(He also said, ?I am numbed by the narrow-minded arrogance of the entire argument,? which may be a different point, but the Measure 36 backers brought him up.)
MOst of the citations offered by ZEB and others are from fundmentalist websites posing as real news sites. Light on credibility, heavy on falshood and histrionics. Very nice.
You truly are excellent at misconstruing and misunderstanding. You probably still think I’m a gay man, don’t you? If you were a close observer, you’d know different. The question was asked about representations of gay people in history and I just pointed out that at least as far back as Sumer, there were depictions of people engaging in homosexual behavior. And just to help you out a little, marriage was not and is not defined the same way the world over and throughout history.
I applaud your expert use of straw man arguments. Bravo and huzzah.
And what’s to stop you folks from adding another constitutional amendment regarding gay people’s rights once you get the first one passed? Hitler started small and as far as I’m concerned, those who are fighting to prevent gay people from being able to marry, are pretty much of a kind with Nazis. The hatred and vitriol are there and come through clearly whether you deny it or not.
Have a good one, Z.
G[/quote]
Can you give me just one hateful statement that I posted? Can you give me just piece of nasty “vitriol” that I spread relative to this topic? No…I guess not. However, you can certainly spout off about it…I call that “Internet courage.”
The old “hate” argument! It was fun debating with the many others on this thread, and the other threads on this topic. It was also very clean right up to this point!
When you run out of real arguments always go to the “hate” thang…LOL. You can’t supply any reasons to change the institution of marriage to include Gays so…“time for the hate material.” It’s predictable and it’s sad in a way.
Sometimes I wonder if it’s a basic projection on the part of those who claim others “hate” with no proof. In
other words, do they “hate” me (or whoever opposes their viewpoint) so much that by virtue of this strong emotion project that onto me for having strong opinions for traditional marriage? Or, is it simply a tactic used when indeed they inevitably run out of arguments to promote their view?
Just for your edification: I don’t hate anyone. You can debate “for” something (like traditional marriage) without “hating” the other party. I also voted for President Bush over John Kerry, but I don’t hate Kerry. In fact, I think that he has many admirable qualities. I don’t even hate Hillary Clinton and I consider her a border line socialist (at heart). Do you think everyone who opposes Gay marriage, or whatever issue that you support is evil and filled with hatred? I guess some people are on both sides. But I think the majority of people can disagree without hating the other side.
I would hope that in the future you can do the same with those whom you disagree with. Life is short and it’s just not worth it to hate anyone my friend!
“Well dog gone it Zeb you must hate homosexuals if you don’t want them to be married.” Think about that statement. How does it logically fit? Can I simply be for the conservation of marriage as it stands without “hating” anyone? Sure I can!
Thinking men and women can disagree, without being disagreeable. I think you might have heard that one before. The name calling, character assassination, no good pal…no good. Be better than that!
Fight for what you believe in, but don’t hate. When you start hating you automatically lose!
[quote]guerriere wrote:
Working from what?s now ?a considerable body of research on the subject,? writes Charlotte J. Patterson, professor of developmental psychology at the University of Virginia, ?Not a single study has found children of lesbian and gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children?s psychosocial growth.[/quote]
Please cite the specific studies involved. How many Gay couples were studied over how long a period of time? I think that these are the most difficult things to prove. The long term effects on children would take years to study. How can this be done in a short period of time?
Yes, they “voted.” It is the first time in their history that they actually voted on such a thing. Do you know why they “voted?” They voted because there was not enough body of evidence to pursue the usual trial and error studies done. It was politically motivated by the powerful Gay lobby organizations. My point from the beginning: let’s take politics out of this thing (I know it’s impossible) and actually give it a serious look on merit alone.
Please point out the specific “falshood” that you claim is evident. Otherise, it seems that you are casting yet more hateful aspersions. this time on other peoples research.
Your claims are deliberately distracting and very much incorrect! One particular study that I posted was done by two people: "Dr. David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison who had no opinion one way or the other prior to their study!
They studied 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years.
Their conclusion:
"Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of “committed” typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage.
Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years.
Stated another way, ALL COUPLES WITH A RELATIONSHIP LASTING MORE THAN FIVE YEARS INCORPORATED SOME PROVISION FOR OUTSIDE SEXUAL ACTIVITY IN THEIR RELATIONSHIPS!"
The above information, and other facts that I have posted, are very difficult for some of the politically correct to accept. I only ask that they try to be open minded relative to the specific research offered. I know that probably nothing that I post will ever change their mind. However, keep in mind that there is a large body of people that do read this site (this thread in particular) who may have seen some of this information for the first time and will draw their own conclusions.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
7. Children usually do better when there is a mother and a father present.
If same-sex civil marriage becomes common, most same-sex couples with children would be lesbian couples.
"This would mean that we would have yet more children being raised apart from fathers. Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior and delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls.
Conversely, the relationships that would also be lacking; Among other things, mothers excel in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants. Obviously, they also give their daughters unique counsel as they confront the physical, emotional, and social challenges associated with puberty and adolescence."
Statistically marriages thrive under gender specific roles.
"For instance, women are happier when their husband earns the lion’s share of the household income. Likewise, couples are less likely to divorce when the wife concentrates on childrearing and the husband concentrates on breadwinning.
University of Virginia psychologist Mavis Hetherington.
[/quote]
I didn’t want to get into yet another iteration of this discussion, and I waited 2 days after this post, but since nobody else really commented on this part…
Is it only me that finds this passage of Zeb’s post repulsively sexist?
I mean, Zeb, get a grip: even though you’re basically agreeing that we don’t really know how people “become” homosexual, you’re positive there is such a thing as “gender roles” and that there are tasks that only women can do (or do them better) while others only men can do (or do them better)?
If you do, I’m sorry for you. I really am.
Yes, men and women have some very dramatic physiological differences, but they have nothing to do with their ability to perform the classical “gender roles”.
The amount of scientific evidence showing that “gender roles” are mostly the result of thousands of years of conditioning (or should I call it brainwashing?), and today have little to do with biology is so great that I won’t even waste my time discussing it with you.
For your information, in gay couples (and I know plenty of those, since I do live in the San Francisco Bay Area!), what happens in many cases is that one of the elements of the couple will take traditional “male” roles, while the other will take the traditional “female” roles. In other cases, they’ll share. Which is exactly what happens in hetero couples these days, by the way.
Personally, if I met a woman that I even suspected would be happier if I earned “the lion’s share of the household income”, I’d run away – fast. Actually, in some years (depending on the variable component of our income) my wife makes a little bit more money than I do, and she’s pretty happy regardless.
I could also go on with examples of people that I personally know that completely break the gender sterotypes you lay out.
Anyway, I digress – The fact that you believe that while gayness cannot be explained by biology, but “gender roles” can, shows that really need to take a step back from your judgemental stance and actually look at the big picture.
I’m doing some cut now, just to keep the length of the post in check.[/i][quote]
ZEB wrote:
…
If we don’t know why people become Gay and we are truly keeping an open mind, then it might be something that could be changed, if the person wanted to. Even if there is partly a genetic reason. What if there are some people who might be partly “genetically determined” to steal? Do they have to act on this? Furthermore, with the proper therapy do they have less of a desire to steal? Could the desire be abandoned altogether?
I am not making this comparison to in any way denegrate homosexuality. However there is a large body of people who claim that their behavior has changed due to therapy.
Do I believe this? I think it has at least as much credibility as the “it’s all genetic” theory. It appears that there is some success using therapy techniques with people who truly want to change. Also, it certainly does no harm!
…
Theories do abound on this very interesting topic![/quote]
[i]Yes, they do - I have to point out though that it is quite hard to find web sources which actually have an academic setup, not a religious or political.
Here a historical view on “therapy” for gays:[/i]
When gays were ‘cured’
By Brian Wheeler
BBC News Online Magazine
A bishop’s suggestion that homosexuals see psychiatrists for “re-orientation” has caused a huge row. But it’s not so long since the idea that homosexuality could be treated by science or medicine - even on the NHS - was mainstream.
According to consultant psychiatrist Michael Knight, who is about to publish a paper on the subject, “biological treatments for homosexuality” dominated the early part of the 20th Century.
[i]There are quite a number of older gay men (mostly) having been subjected to this kind of therapy, and they are still working out wtf happened to them.
The problem is alo, that it’s not only APA - only a small minority of health professionals regard homosexuality as a disease. I have to concede that we operate on noses on boobs, although there is nothing wrong with them, but you have risks there as well.[/i]
[quote]What would they say to the thousands who have undergone therapy and left homosexuality? This is very interesting to me.
…
If you told me that man cannot fly by flapping his arms. Then you proved that by demonstrating that no one had ever flown by doing so, I would certainly have to agree! However, what do can you personally say to the 20% (or so) who have undergone therapy and left homosexuality?
Do you tell them that they have not really changed? Do you tell them to forget it a few politically correct egg heads who have charge of the APA say it’s impossible so that just cannot be? The very first time in the history of the APA a vote was taken by the APA relative to homosexuality. That was the very first time that that organization left science behind and opted for a political decision. Why did they vote to include Gay behavior as acceptable, taking it off the list of deviant acts? When in fact there was no science to prove it?[/quote]
Which leads us directly to NARTH and modern forms of “therapy”:
On May 17, 1997 NARTH published the results of a two year study involving 860 clients and 200 psychologists and therapists. Mainstream psychological associations called the study heavily biased, because each of the therapists supplied data only on their “success” stories. The organization did not report their success rate at converting patients with a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation. They did not make distinction between homosexuals and bisexuals in the program. And did not differentiate between homosexuals, bisexuals and heterosexuals among those leaving. This study has not been accepted to be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.
Conversion rate estimates:
Unfortunately, as of 2001-MAY, no study of conversion therapy has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Those studies that have been conducted have many deficiencies. Often complete data has been withheld. This makes the “conversion rate” impossible to estimate accurately. However, a few studies have uncovered sufficient information by which we may be able to make a very crude estimate of the conversion rate:
bullet Exodus International (1978): The ministry selected 30 of their 800 members as having changed from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual in orientation. Two outside psychiatrists interviewed the 30 and found that only three were actually heterosexual. Subsequent to the study, two of the male founders of Exodus fell in love and were united in a union ceremony. They claimed that the Exodus program was “ineffective…not one person was healed.” The conversion rate, based on the study is 3 in 800, on the order of 0.4%
bullet Masters and Johnson (1979): This study claimed an impressive conversion rate of 50 to 60% which was maintained for 5 years after treatment. Unfortunately, only five of the 67 participants (7%) began the study with a homosexual orientation. From the available data is quite possible that none of these five converted to heterosexuality. No estimate of the conversion rate can be obtained from this study.
bullet NARTH (1997): They studied 860 clients whose data was sent by 200 therapists who were members of the organization. When the subjects entered therapy, 68% identified themselves as totally or almost exclusively homosexual. It is not clear whether this referred to sexual behavior or sexual orientation. The actual percentage of homosexuals was not reported; most of the subjects might have been bisexual. When they left therapy, 33% said they were exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual. Again, it is unclear whether this refers to behavior or orientation. Again, the percentage of heterosexuals is unknown. Unfortunately, 63% of the subjects were still undergoing therapy at the time of the survey. Of greater interest would be the percentage of subjects who entered with a homosexual orientation, converted to bisexuality or heterosexuality, and were able to sustain their sexual orientation for, say, two years following therapy. The NARTH report did not track the results of those clients after therapy. It is possible that none of the subjects who entered therapy with a homosexual orientation was able to change their orientation. No estimate of the conversion rate can be obtained from this study.
bullet Schroeder & Shidlo (in progress): This study is aiming at analyzing the experience of 200 people who have undergone conversion therapy. As of late 1997, they had studied 100 subjects. They reported a conversion rate of 0%.
bullet OCRT pilot study (2000): The sponsors of this web site surveyed each of the 36 websites of the GayChange WebRing. 3 These are mainly Internet sites created by individuals or small Christian ministries. From the sites’ content, all appear to be Evangelical Christian in outlook. Of the 28 accessible web sites, only one reported what they felt were conversion success. They had two clients who entered therapy with a homosexual orientation, and decided during therapy to remain celibate. One entered therapy as a bisexual and has developed a relationship with a person of the opposite sex. Neither actually changed their sexual orientation. The conversion rate of the Christian ministries sampled was 0%.
bullet Exodus International (2000): On 2000-JAN-21, the board of directors of the National Association of Social Workers issued a statement which condemned all therapies which attempt to change a person’s sexual orientation. Exodus International (EI) offered a rebuttal to that statement. In his rebuttal, Bob Davies, North American director of EI wrote that:
bullet Over 250,000 individuals have contacted various EI offices inquiring about a sexual orientation change. This includes “gays, lesbians, family members, friends, counselors and pastors.”
bullet Thousands of men and women have stopped homosexual behavior. That is, they have decided to become celibate. These are now “in the process of seeking deeper change in their sexual feelings and attractions.”
Unfortunately, he does not estimate how many of these thousands of clients have actually changed their sexual orientation. On 2001-MAY-14, we Emailed EI asking for additional information. Davies does mention that some “are now happily married and raising children.” However he does not give estimates of their number, nor does he indicate how many were entered EI as bisexuals and have remained with that sexual orientation. No estimate of the conversion rate can be obtained from this study.
bullet Spitzer (2000): Dr. Robert Spitzer conducted a study of 143 “ex-gays” and 57 “ex-lesbians” who had reported that they had become “straight.” In fact, the data shows that few are now heterosexual. He reported that 89% of the men and 63% of the subjects emerged from therapy still having feelings of attraction to persons of the same-sex. 16 (11%) of the men and 21 (37%) of the women report that they now have a heterosexual orientation. Again, it is not known how many entered therapy as bisexuals or as homosexuals.
A total of 86 of the 200 subjects were referred to Dr. Spitzer by conservative Christian groups specializing in homosexual ministry; NARTH referred 46 subjects; other sources provided 68. It is apparent that the individuals that Dr. Spitzer interviewed were hand-selected from a very large group of persons who had either a homosexuals or a bisexual orientation. The 46 subjects from NARTH might have been chosen as the most successful patients from as many as 250,000 individuals who entered therapy. Unfortunately, no data has been reported about the total number of persons from whom the 200 carefully selected patients were provided. Assuming that only 100,000 subjects were involved – a VERY conservative figure, then 37 “success stories” represents a conversion rate of 0.04%.
Conclusion:
From the available data, four studies reported a “success” rate during conversion therapy of 0.4%, 0.0%, 0.0 and 0.04%. That is, conversion therapy has a failure rate in excess of 99.5% during each study. Considering the anecdotal data which indicates a large percentage of extremely depressed and suicidal clients emerging from conversion therapy, it would appear that this form of therapy is worthless. It my well result in the death by suicide of more gays and lesbians than it “converts” to a heterosexual orientation. Unfortunately, we cannot be certain of this. The quality of the studies is extremely poor.
[i]Sorry, I would not normally quote from a website that I’m not sure is not biased, but I did like their conversion rate comparison list as a good overview.
Here is a really long and I think (even for non-Guardian readers) quite balanced article on the topic, with an interesting conclusion.[/i]
[quote]Here is a fact: We really don’t know why anyone becomes Gay! If you and others who hold your view really do believe that then an open mind should be kept, especially for those who currently view themselves as homosexual but want to make a change!
Are they entitled to happiness, or are they too supposed to knuckle under to the politically correct?
No, they don’t have to. But there is a difference here: From the view of the scientific consensus on the topic, it is a choice for people to seek therapy. And that they may do, just like any other esoteric (or faith-based) therapy form - but it is correct of the scientific community to point out to risks and success rates.
[quote]…
The author’s view of the 1973 and 1974 decisions reclassifying homosexuality is worthy of quoting here:
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association yielded suddenly and completely to political pressure when in 1973 it removed homosexuality as a treatable aberrant condition. A political firestorm had been created by gay activists within psychiatry, with intense opposition to normalizing homosexuality coming from a few outspoken psychiatrists who were demonized and even threatened, rather than scientifically refuted.
Psychiatry’s House of Delegates sidestepped the conflict by putting the matter to a vote of the membership, marking the first time in the history of healthcare that a diagnosis or lack of diagnosis was decided by popular vote rather than scientific evidence (p. 9).
The authors do not complain about what was done, but rather, how it was done. The co-author (Cummings) of the chapter not only agrees with the outcome, but in 1974 introduced the successful resolution declaring that homosexuality was not a psychiatric condition. However, the resolution carried with it a “proscription that appropriate and needed research would be conducted to substantiate these decisions.” Cummings “watched with dismay as there was no effort on the part of APA to promote or even encourage such required research” (p. 9).[/quote]
This is not a reason for dismay - for a scientist, it’s a reason to rejoice: A field that has not been ploughed by competing colleagues! Well, let’s get to it, shall we…
[quote]Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children.
That is an interesting point which I have not done much research on. However, since you posted this I have been reading some information. I cannot personally testify as to the quality of information. However, they do have study data etc. Take a look at it. I’m sure anyone who is pro homosexual unions will not like it. Those who are against homosexual unions will have yet more ammunition. Keep in mind I make no judgements based on this data. However, since you brought it up here it is:
This, I would be quite critical about. I have not followed your links yet (3mins left before I have to leave for work), but I have read others before. First of all, I am not sure about the 1-2% claim, then, if we define homosexual behaviour as, well behaviour, and you end up with a very muddied definition of a homosexual perpetrator. As for molestation: if you read criminal statistics (I have done, and I think I actually posted some stuff on this some time ago), you will see that quite a majority of cases mostly involves heterosexually oriented males victimising female family (!) members or are from the immidiate surroundings.
Yes, I’m sure that you are correct relative to the “majority.” However, since homosexuals comprise only about 2% of the population IF they are responsible for fully one third of all molestation of boys then obviously that is a disproportionate amount of occurrences to their total in the population![/quote]
[i]Now that is an interesting thing: I spent up a long time last night, trying to find a proper statistical source on that. The main problem with the studies seems to be a very inconsistent concept of “homosexual”. As we have established earlier, thus putting Kinsey into perspective, is that a homoerotic orientation is of a floating nature - do you define someone as gay who has had one homosexual encounter, does that requite penetrative sex, etc.? Given the fact that the studies mostly have been on prison inmates, it’s surely not a surprise that there is a high incidence of men who have had homosexual experiences (especially if you take the high reoffending rate of sexual delinquents into account).
My point: I think it is very problematic to conclude from prison inmates on to the rest of the gay population (even the Kinsey Institute cleaned up their 40s data later, to take out this non-representative sample of the population. Also, when you do some research on the topic, it’s interesting to see that scientists do not automaticall regard a man-boy-attack as a reason to believe the perpetrator is actually defining himself as homosexual.[/i]
A long discussion can be found here:
Science cannot prove a negative. Thus, these studies do not prove that homosexual or bisexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children. However, each of them failed to prove the alternative hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents.
The Mainstream View
Reflecting the results of these and other studies, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children. For example, in one review of the scientific literature, noted authority Dr. A. Nicholas Groth wrote:
Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).
…
Conclusion
The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.
…
All original content of this website is copyright ? 1997-2005 by Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D.
All rights reserved
I don’t think he has been refuted - I think he has been corrected through a more rigorous methodology. You have to put science into historical and social context - Kinsey was quite a lone figure in his field, and just like Freud may be belittled nowadays, but still their work was groundbreaking. And even Kinsey came up with a scale for homosexual orientation, just not as exact as nowadays.
[quote]…
Let me put this another way: I personally don’t care what two consenting adults do in private! The majority of the population (according to the latest polling data) agrees with me on this. If someone else has a problem with that I think that they are the ones who need to seek therapy. Either that or simply shut up and mind their own business! My only interest is really the marriage issue. Homosexual marriage is something that effects the entire society. Hence, I and the majority of Americans (67%) are not in favor of it, at this time.[/quote]
And that is absolutely fine - as “you” guys always say: It’s a matter of choice.
[quote]…
ZEB,I know that you truly believe in the institution of marriage - but I think that what you envision does not exist anymore, except for a few exceptions (like my parents, you and your wife, and a few others).
Even if that were true why would you want to make a bad thing worse!
But mostly people’s (of all sexual orientations and proclivities) behaviour, historically and now, has been anti-thetical to the moral values of marriage.
If that were the case then why do homosexuals want to marry? If the institution is not going to be respected anyway? Is it all about money?[/quote]
No, not at all. The value of getting married is being regarded as very high - especially among serial wedders ;-), as research shows (I used to write my MA on this, so if you want, I should be able to find some sources): It is the practicality of upholding a relationship that people fail to do. Gay people are socialised within a society that regards marriage as a high value, and it’s understandable that they want to parttake. Do I think it’s a good idea? Not really, as I have a very critical view on this almost religious status of couplehood - but as citizens, I think they have a right to try.
[quote]As Boston Barrister pointed out in one of his posts not long ago: The 50% divorce rate which is often quoted is quite wrong relative to real working percentages. This figure includes those who are on their third and fourth marriage as well as all the others.
The individuals who have been married multiple times skew the actual divorce rate which is probably no higher than 35% at best.
[/quote]
Just as you have highly promiscuitive homosexuals literally fucking up the statistics on gay couplehood. You have to include these guys & girls.
[quote]Marriage is still the best and strongest social institution which our civilization provides. To allow this to be experiemented with before all of the facts are in would be a horrible and probable very costly mistake!
I am merely asking that those who think it is a fine idea to wait until all the facts are in before attempting to sound open minded for the sake of it.[/quote]
Here some facts and figures from the “great experiment” - Holland:
Gay divorce stats released
04/04/2005 17:39 - (SA)
Related Articles
Dutch change gay laws
Amsterdam - Gay Dutch couples appear to divorce at a rate of about one percent a year - the same rate as heterosexual married couples, according to government data released on Monday.
The Netherlands legalised gay marriage in 2001 - the first country to do so - and the data released on Monday was the first time the government has reported on gay divorce rates.
Between April 2001, when gay marriage was legalised, and December 2003 there have been 5 751 gay marriages and 63 divorces, according to figures gathered from city registers.
In the same period, there were around 243 000 heterosexual marriages and 2 800 heterosexual divorces in the country of 16 million.
Dutch change gay laws
09/03/2005 17:15 - (SA)
Related Articles
The Hague - A majority of Dutch lawmakers presented on Wednesday a bill that would legalise the adoption of foreign children by gay couples and create greater equality for homosexual families.
The adoption of Dutch children by gay couples has been possible since same-sex marriage was legalised in the Netherlands in September 2000, but not cross-border adoption.
If passed, it will remove hurdles for children adopted by gays in general and resolve serious inheritance and legal parenthood issues, said Philip Tijsma of the Democrats 66 party which first suggested the law.
Dr.Mavis Hetherington of the University of Virginia psychologist contends that traditional role models are best for parenting. She claims:
Children usually do better when there is a mother and a father present.
Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior and delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls.
Among other things, mothers excel in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants.
Statistically marriages thrive under gender specific roles.
Couples are less likely to divorce when the wife concentrates on childrearing and the husband concentrates on breadwinning.
It’s obvious how she came to her conclusions. The above is due largely to “hard wired” brain differences between the two genders. It has nothing to do with “brainwashing.”
"The male brain is highly specialized, using specific parts of one hemisphere or the other to accomplish specific tasks.
The female brain is more diffused and utilizes significant portions of both hemispheres for a variety of tasks.
Men are able to focus on narrow issues and block out unrelated information and distractions.
Women naturally see everyday things from a broader, big-picture vantage point.
Men can narrowly focus their brains on specific tasks or activities for long periods of time without tiring.
Women are better equipped to divide their attention among multiple activities or tasks.
Men are able to separate information, stimulus, emotions, relationships, etc. into separate compartments in their brains, while women tend to link everything together.
Men see individual issues with parts of their brain, while women look at the holistic or multiple issues with their whole brain (both hemispheres).
Men have as much as 20 times more testosterone in their systems than do women. This makes men typically more aggressive, dominant and more narrowly focused on the physical aspects of sex.
In men, the dominant perceptual sense is vision, which is typically not the case with women.
All of a woman?s senses are, in some respects, more finely tuned than those of a man."
All of the above (and more) probably make up the reasons why Dr. Heatherington and many others come to the conclusion that each parent is better at certain tasks with in the marriage then the other.
That does not mean that one parent cannot do the other persons task. It simply means that they usually will not be as good at it.
The differences can be ignored, or played down. You can even attack those who point them out. However all the political correctness in the world won’t change how we are made!
I think it’s great that you and your wife have a successful relationship which works with more non-traditional roles. I’m sure that plenty of people have had the same success. However, that does not in fact discount Dr. Heatheringtons work one iota!
Here is some reading that you may or may not find interesting:
While this is an admittedly small sample (44 out of 12,000 highschool students reported having same sex parents), the results indicate that lesbian couples raise well adjusted teenagers.
[quote]soupandspoons wrote:
While this is an admittedly small sample (44 out of 12,000 highschool students reported having same sex parents), the results indicate that lesbian couples raise well adjusted teenagers.
The study of 156 Gay couples which I cited earlier seems stronger than the above study. Studying only 44 lesbian couples is not very significant. however, this is a start!
Good job!
I think that this is the type of research that needs to be done on a larger scale.
She is one psychologist. No one intelligent and educated on the issue would argue that there aren’t differences between the way men and women’s brains work. But as a psychology marjor and member of psi chi (national psych honor society), I can tell you that not every psychologist agrees with her conclusion. One problem is that we’ve been forced to evalutate things from a contemporary framework. The norm has been men as the primary breadwinners up until recently. The norm has also been with mother as the primary caretaker. Deviations from this norm can be complicated and cause heartache is a complex society. Families don’t live in a vacum. But it’s becoming more and more common for women to have high-power careers, and it will become increasingly common for them to become the primary breadwinners. Gender roles are being redefined. From my background and what I’ve learned, I believe that it’s entirely possible for families with the father as the primary caregiver and the mother as the primary breadwinner to raise healthy, well-adjusted children. What I do see as a problem is two parents with high-power careers who are largely absent from the home and their children’s lives. I don’t think being raised by nannies is a good thing. But that is a personal opinion, albeit one influenced by an understanding of psychological and sociological functioning and child development. It has not as of yet been thouroughly researched or tracked. You have also failed to link these gender differences to parenting nor explained why a woman’s way of viewing and interpreting the world would make her a superior parent.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
hspder:
Dr.Mavis Hetherington of the University of Virginia psychologist contends that traditional role models are best for parenting. She claims:
Children usually do better when there is a mother and a father present.
Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior and delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls.
Among other things, mothers excel in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants.
Statistically marriages thrive under gender specific roles.
Couples are less likely to divorce when the wife concentrates on childrearing and the husband concentrates on breadwinning.
It’s obvious how she came to her conclusions. The above is due largely to “hard wired” brain differences between the two genders. It has nothing to do with “brainwashing.”
"The male brain is highly specialized, using specific parts of one hemisphere or the other to accomplish specific tasks.
The female brain is more diffused and utilizes significant portions of both hemispheres for a variety of tasks.
Men are able to focus on narrow issues and block out unrelated information and distractions.
Women naturally see everyday things from a broader, big-picture vantage point.
Men can narrowly focus their brains on specific tasks or activities for long periods of time without tiring.
Women are better equipped to divide their attention among multiple activities or tasks.
Men are able to separate information, stimulus, emotions, relationships, etc. into separate compartments in their brains, while women tend to link everything together.
Men see individual issues with parts of their brain, while women look at the holistic or multiple issues with their whole brain (both hemispheres).
Men have as much as 20 times more testosterone in their systems than do women. This makes men typically more aggressive, dominant and more narrowly focused on the physical aspects of sex.
In men, the dominant perceptual sense is vision, which is typically not the case with women.
All of a woman?s senses are, in some respects, more finely tuned than those of a man."
All of the above (and more) probably make up the reasons why Dr. Heatherington and many others come to the conclusion that each parent is better at certain tasks with in the marriage then the other.
That does not mean that one parent cannot do the other persons task. It simply means that they usually will not be as good at it.
The differences can be ignored, or played down. You can even attack those who point them out. However all the political correctness in the world won’t change how we are made!
I think it’s great that you and your wife have a successful relationship which works with more non-traditional roles. I’m sure that plenty of people have had the same success. However, that does not in fact discount Dr. Heatheringtons work one iota!
Here is some reading that you may or may not find interesting:
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
She is one psychologist. No one intelligent and educated on the issue would argue that there aren’t differences between the way men and women’s brains work. But as a psychology marjor and member of psi chi (national psych honor society), I can tell you that not every psychologist agrees with her conclusion. One problem is that we’ve been forced to evalutate things from a contemporary framework. The norm has been men as the primary breadwinners up until recently. The norm has also been with mother as the primary caretaker. Deviations from this norm can be complicated and cause heartache is a complex society. Families don’t live in a vacum. But it’s becoming more and more common for women to have high-power careers, and it will become increasingly common for them to become the primary breadwinners. Gender roles are being redefined. From my background and what I’ve learned, I believe that it’s entirely possible for families with the father as the primary caregiver and the mother as the primary breadwinner to raise healthy, well-adjusted children. What I do see as a problem is two parents with high-power careers who are largely absent from the home and their children’s lives. I don’t think being raised by nannies is a good thing. But that is a personal opinion, albeit one influenced by an understanding of psychological and sociological functioning and child development. It has not as of yet been thouroughly researched or tracked. You have also failed to link these gender differences to parenting nor explained why a woman’s way of viewing and interpreting the world would make her a superior parent.
ZEB wrote:
hspder:
Dr.Mavis Hetherington of the University of Virginia psychologist contends that traditional role models are best for parenting. She claims:
Children usually do better when there is a mother and a father present.
Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior and delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls.
Among other things, mothers excel in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants.
Statistically marriages thrive under gender specific roles.
Couples are less likely to divorce when the wife concentrates on childrearing and the husband concentrates on breadwinning.
It’s obvious how she came to her conclusions. The above is due largely to “hard wired” brain differences between the two genders. It has nothing to do with “brainwashing.”
"The male brain is highly specialized, using specific parts of one hemisphere or the other to accomplish specific tasks.
The female brain is more diffused and utilizes significant portions of both hemispheres for a variety of tasks.
Men are able to focus on narrow issues and block out unrelated information and distractions.
Women naturally see everyday things from a broader, big-picture vantage point.
Men can narrowly focus their brains on specific tasks or activities for long periods of time without tiring.
Women are better equipped to divide their attention among multiple activities or tasks.
Men are able to separate information, stimulus, emotions, relationships, etc. into separate compartments in their brains, while women tend to link everything together.
Men see individual issues with parts of their brain, while women look at the holistic or multiple issues with their whole brain (both hemispheres).
Men have as much as 20 times more testosterone in their systems than do women. This makes men typically more aggressive, dominant and more narrowly focused on the physical aspects of sex.
In men, the dominant perceptual sense is vision, which is typically not the case with women.
All of a woman?s senses are, in some respects, more finely tuned than those of a man."
All of the above (and more) probably make up the reasons why Dr. Heatherington and many others come to the conclusion that each parent is better at certain tasks with in the marriage then the other.
That does not mean that one parent cannot do the other persons task. It simply means that they usually will not be as good at it.
The differences can be ignored, or played down. You can even attack those who point them out. However all the political correctness in the world won’t change how we are made!
I think it’s great that you and your wife have a successful relationship which works with more non-traditional roles. I’m sure that plenty of people have had the same success. However, that does not in fact discount Dr. Heatheringtons work one iota!
Here is some reading that you may or may not find interesting:
I already stated that I thought non traditional gender roles could work just fine (That is not to say the best). However, that does not negate the fact that traditional roles according to Dr.Mavis Hetherington are best!
The differences that I cited in the post were not from Dr Hetheringtons work. Simply a possibility that I put forth as to why traditional roles work best. If there are brain differences (and there are) that is simply one possiblitity why children do “best” being raised in traditional homes. I am sure that there are other reasons as well.
If you are interested, I suggest that you pursue some of Dr. Hetheringtons work.
I already stated that I thought non traditional gender roles could work just fine (That is not to say the best). However, that does not negate the fact that traditional roles according to Dr.Mavis Hetherington are best!
The differences that I cited in the post were not from Dr Hetheringtons work. Simply a possibility that I put forth as to why traditional roles work best. If there are brain differences (and there are) that is simply one possiblitity why children do “best” being raised in traditional homes. I am sure that there are other reasons as well.
If you are interested, I suggest that you pursue some of Dr. Hetheringtons work.
Take care,
Zeb
[/quote]
I’ll take a look at it if I get the chance. I’m undecided on the issue. As a whole, I may agree with you. Just from anecdotal evidence and personal experiences, I think there’s a larger percentage of women who would be better at raising children than men. But I think there are certainly individual cases where the opposite is true. Not all women are particularly nurturing or well-equipped to be mothers. Some men are very nurturing. I believe that there are families where the best option would be the male as the primary giver and the women as the primary bread earner. I’ve known several couples I’ve felt this way about.
I’ll take a look at it if I get the chance. I’m undecided on the issue. As a whole, I may agree with you. Just from anecdotal evidence and personal experiences, I think there’s a larger percentage of women who would be better at raising children than men. But I think there are certainly individual cases where the opposite is true. Not all women are particularly nurturing or well-equipped to be mothers. Some men are very nurturing. I believe that there are families where the best option would be the male as the primary giver and the women as the primary bread earner. I’ve known several couples I’ve felt this way about.
[/quote]
I commend you for keeping an open mind and not bowing to the politically correct before you have studied the facts yourself!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Dr.Mavis Hetherington of the University of Virginia psychologist contends that traditional role models are best for parenting. She claims:
[/quote]
The fact that one (or a few) rogue, heavily biased psychologists that disagrees with the pile of evidence there is to prove the exact opposite of what she’s saying is irrelevant. Dr. Hetherington was actually thrown out of Berkeley because of her views, and for a good reason – her bias in this specific area is so obvious it was impossible for her to hold any position at Berkeley. She’s just not objective.
She’s such a crackpot, she’s not even consistent. For example, she did write a book talking about all the good things about divorce, which completely clashes with the stuff you’re quoting her on:
"
Hetherington finds that divorce often rescues many adults and children from the horror of domestic abuse. In addition, she observes divorce can offer a remarkable opportunity for life-transforming personal growth, especially for women and girls.
In For Better or For Worse, she questions myths about divorce like “Children Always Lose Out After a Divorce,” and “Men Are the Big Winners in Divorce.”
From For Better or For Worse:
–“?divorce is a reasonable solution to an unhappy, acrimonious, destructive marital relationship. It can be a gateway to pathways associated with joy, satisfaction, and attainments, not just with loss, pain, and failure.”
"
I’d also be more than willing to bet that most T-Vixens on this site disagree with her too in regards to “gender roles”
Anyway, I’m digressing again: my main point is that you’re not being consistent: on one side, you’re willing to consider that “gender roles” are hardwired into our brain, but on the other you’re not equally sure gayness is too?
Basically, what you’re failing to realize is: each person is a different case, a different shade of grey in a matrix with almost infinite dimensions, positioned by a combination of genetics and conditioning. It’s not as simple as you or Dr. Hetherington are trying to make it. Anyone that claims it is – well, that someone doesn’t understand the basic concepts of science, and is just trying really hard to only see what you want to see to give credence to your bias – not the full picture.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
She is one psychologist. No one intelligent and educated on the issue would argue that there aren’t differences between the way men and women’s brains work. But as a psychology marjor and member of psi chi (national psych honor society),
I can tell you that not every psychologist agrees with her conclusion. One problem is that we’ve been forced to evalutate things from a contemporary framework. The norm has been men as the primary breadwinners up until recently. The norm has also been with mother as the primary caretaker. Deviations from this norm can be complicated and cause heartache is a complex society.
Families don’t live in a vacum. But it’s becoming more and more common for women to have high-power careers, and it will become increasingly common for them to become the primary breadwinners. Gender roles are being redefined. From my background and what I’ve learned, I believe that it’s entirely possible for families with the father as the primary caregiver and the mother as the primary breadwinner to raise healthy, well-adjusted children.
What I do see as a problem is two parents with high-power careers who are largely absent from the home and their children’s lives. I don’t think being raised by nannies is a good thing. But that is a personal opinion, albeit one influenced by an understanding of psychological and sociological functioning and child development. It has not as of yet been thouroughly researched or tracked.
You have also failed to link these gender differences to parenting nor explained why a woman’s way of viewing and interpreting the world would make her a superior parent.
[/quote]
Brilliant post, jsbrook, couldn’t agree more with everything you said.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Brilliant post, jsbrook, couldn’t agree more with everything you said.
[/quote]
Thanks. I would like to look into her ideas myself. My biggest problem with Zeb’s post is that there’s no evidence that any of the male/female brain differences (which I believe exist to a degree) would make one sex a better parent than the other. It also evaluates things on a bell curve. A lot of women have more ‘male’ attributes and brain characteristics and a a lot of men have more ‘female’ attributes and brain characteristics.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I never mentioned the bible, [/quote]
Never said you did. I was simply observing that most people who object to homosexuality do so on religious grounds, but that these religious grounds are tentative at best.
Go and find the ones where God or Jesus said it’s sinful. There are a great many places where Paul says it’s sinful, but I think he has somewhat less authority.
There is a big difference between demanding something that you don’t deserve because you want it, and demanding something you don’t have because you deserve it. The former is forcing an agenda, while the latter is correcting an injustice. I believe gays see the illegality of gay marriage as an injustice to be corrected, not an agenda to be forced. I tend to agree.
A tactic you seem to be using is to say that because the homosexual community is unfair to us, we should be unfair to them. Forget fair, does that seem morally right to you?
[quote]hspder wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Dr.Mavis Hetherington of the University of Virginia psychologist contends that traditional role models are best for parenting. She claims:
The fact that one (or a few) rogue, heavily biased psychologists that disagrees with the pile of evidence there is to prove the exact opposite of what she’s saying is irrelevant.[/quote]
Really, now what “body of evidence” is out there contradicting her? Also, I think, if you really study the topic, you will find that it is difficult to find any Psychologist who is not heavily biased one way or the other. usually toward Gay marriage as it is the politically correct stance to take!
I have friends who work at Berkeley and they will attest to the fact that Berkeley is probably one of the most liberal (plitically correct) institutions in the country! Good for Hetherington for sticking to her guns and not caving to political pressure.
[quote]She’s such a crackpot, she’s not even consistent. For example, she did write a book talking about all the good things about divorce, which completely clashes with the stuff you’re quoting her on:
Actually, I quoted her teachings regarding traditional marriage holding up better than other less traditional marriages. Her focus was not that divorce is bad. However, if you agreed with her point of view you would be calling her open minded. You might be saying that she can see all points of a problem.
In For Better or For Worse, she questions myths about divorce like “Children Always Lose Out After a Divorce,” and “Men Are the Big Winners in Divorce.”
“T-Vixens” LOL…well then she must be wrong! :).
That’s okay this is after all an Internet forum…digress all you want
How is that not being consistent? One can think that gender roles are indeed hardwired into the brain. In fact, the proof is in on that one. Boys and girls are different. You can see it very early on and studies have shown it to be true, the brains are different.
No such proof has ever been put forth showing the Gay brain to be different from childhood on. This could very well be a behavioral problem which developes during a childs early years. There are theories to support this. Then again it could be a mixture of nature and nurture. Then again it could be totally genetic…we just don’t know do we?
If you are refering to how someone becomes Gay, you don’t know that as their is no proof to substantiate such a claim. If you are talking about the difference between men and women I agree to a certain extent. However, the male brain is different than the female brain there is no denying that at this point! And that makes a difference!
[quote]It’s not as simple as you or Dr. Hetherington are trying to make it. Anyone that claims it is – well, that someone doesn’t understand the basic concepts of science, and is just trying really hard to only see what you want to see to give credence to your bias – not the full picture.
[/quote]
Not having read the entirety of Heatheringtons work I cannot comment. Did you read all of her book?
Personally I am well aware that there are exceptions to the rule. However, exceptions do not change the rule. The female and male brains have major differences which manifest themselves into the world in many different ways.
The politically correct want everyone to believe that there is no difference between the sexe’s. There is really no science to back that up. All of the latest science in fact disputes such a claim. However, that does not mean that “some” women cannot do certain things which men are best at (according to their hardwired brain). It also does not mean that men cannot do what women are “hardwired” to do best.
It simply means that over all certain tasks are better performed by one gender over the other.
