From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Gay marriage
Keywords: marriage relationships gay rights
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:25:48 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

[Sorry for the long delay in sending this . . . my hard disk died, but it
is finally fixed.]

In article <1992Dec8.171057.745@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
gsmith@clio.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <1172@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov30.171155.25322@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
>>gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>>Tells us about them or cite them.
>
>OK, here goes:
>
>From the San Francisco Chronicle
>Monday, November 23, 1992
>
>LESBIAN FAMILIES -- STUDY SHOWS HEALTHY KIDS
>
>Gay advocates say it will help in legal disputes
>
>by David Tuller
>Chronicle Staff Writer
>
>In the largest study of its kind to date, a University of Virginia
>psychologist has found that children born to or adopted by lesbians
>are psychologically healthy.
>
>The study involved 4- to 9-year-olds in 37 lesbian families from the
>Bay area.  Although other studies have indicated that the children of
>gay parents show normal personal and emotional development, most of
>the earlier research has focused on children born to heterosexual
>couples in which either the father or mother later came out of the
>closet.
>
>The parents in the new study by Charlotte Patterson, an associate
>professor of psychology, were open lesbians when they had their
>children.

[The rest of the study deleted for space.]

Well, that's interesting and a start, but it doesn't really answer any
of the questions I posed, or contradict anything I've said.  Moreover
this is a small, limited study by a researcher whose objectivity is
questionable to put it mildly (and objectivity should always be
questioned).

Moreover, while I have not seen the studies myself, I am lead to
believe by the popular media and my own reading that there is
overwhelming evidence that teenage boys, who grow up without a father
present are way more likely to be involved in gangs, crime, and drugs. 
I seen this given as an explanation for why so many Blacks are
involved in crime: because the Black family has so fallen apart in the
last 30 years and so many Black children are raised by single mothers. 
Now, having two "mothers" might help, but the study you quote avoids
the whole question by stopping with 9-year-old's.

...
>See above.  You claimed that gay parents were not as good, and use
>this as the basis of your whole argument so far as I can see.  Where
>is *your* evidence?

I never claimed homosexual parents were not as good, and that is not the
basis for my argument.  If you want to read my whole argument, I can
email it to you.

...
>>Not in any numbers, except zero.  Same-sex couples do not produce
>>children period, at least, not without make medical history.
>
>Lesbian couples can resort to artifice as simple as a turkey baster
>and a willing (often gay) male friend.  They can and have.

That isn't a lesbian couple producing a child, but rather, a man and a
woman.  Sorry.  No one ever said nature is fair.

...
>>Exactly.  We all know divorce isn't good for children in general.  I
>>don't think we do enough to discourage it.
>
>On thing which would discourage it is a lessening of the general
>homophobia of society, which would not lead to so many people of
>essentially homosexual orientation getting married to a person of the
>opposite sex.

What percentage of divorces can be attributed to that?  I know of one,
maybe.  As far as I know this is not a burning social problem.

>Society as a whole and not just gays and lesbians have
>a stake in decreasing homophobia, therefore; which should be
>considered when considering whether it has a stake in gay and lesbian
>relationships.

Ok.

>>>>How many could we expect to have them if we changed the law?  What
>>>>percentage of children so raised will complete school, stay out of
>>>>jail, become productive members of society?  What are their grades,
>>>>etc?  I don't pretend to know the answer to any of these questions.
>>>>In fact, as far as I know, no one does.  We do know that children
>>>>raised in a traditional family do better in these areas.
>
>>>If you don't know the answers to your questions, you don't know enough to
>>>assert what follows them.
>
>>Yes I certainly do.  I'm guessing that you think to is unfair to deny
>>same-sex couples the benefits of legal marriage unless it can be shown
>>that they are poor parents.
>
>More than that, since the evidence shows that they are not poor
>parents.

a) You haven't shown that.

b) I didn't claim the contrary.

c) You deleted my justification (and dropped or.politics from the group
list), leading me to wonder if you are being intentionally dishonest.

>>>You claim the state has no interest in supporting childless couples.
>>>Your reasons for saying it does have an interest in heterosexual
>>>couples with children are precisely the same reasons why it might have
>>>an interest in homosexual couples with children.  So it would seem
>>>more logical following on your premises to conclude that the state
>>>ought to support couples with children, and leave it at that.
>
>>It isn't that simple.  Only giving the benefits of legal marriage to
>>couples with children has at least two problems with it: 1) It
>>encourages couples to have children, especially those who aren't as well
>>off and thus would be more tempted by the benefits, which I doubt is
>>what we want to do.  2) It undermines the traditional family and
>>would increase illegitimacy and single parenthood.
>
>We already subsidize having children by our tax code and free
>education system, among other things.  If you are wanting to
>discourage having children, then discouraging rather than supporting
>the traditional family might be a way to do it.

I didn't say I wanted to discourage having children (nor do I believe we
should), just that I doubt we want to encourage people to have children.

>As for the idea that it undermines the traditional family
>and increases the likelihood of single parenthood, these
>statements are neither obvious nor argued for.

Yes they were argued for.  You simply deleted the argument.  Again,
dishonest?

>Just because Pat Robertson says something does not make it so, and in
>general you seem to be aware of that.  So I suggest you'd better
>explain why you believe this.  If a couple gets benefits by staying
>together, presumably they are more likely to stay together, which I
>thought was the whole point.

Bingo.  Read what I said again (about removing marriage benefits and
giving them only to couples who have children):

	Without the benefits, less people will get married, especially
	those who don't plan to have children; some of these couples
	will have children anyway.  Experience shows that males don't
	always take their parental responsibilities as seriously as
	women usually do, especially if they are not tied to the mother
	through marriage, but only have a few nights of sex invested in
	the relationship.  Some of these men will leave their
	responsibilities behind, more than would have if the marriage
	law were left as is.

If you don't follow this, or don't agree, say so.

...
>>So give them.  What is the state's interest in same-sex couples without
>>or besides children?
>
>For example, we might argue that the state prefers that sexual contact
>be limited to fewer people, to decrease the chance of getting a
>sexually transmitted disease.  We might argue that to integrate gays
>and lesbians into the straight world ("assimilation") would increase
>the solidarity and social stability of society, and decrease
>homophobia (and therefore decrease teenage suicide, divorce, gay
>bashing and assorted other social ills.)

A first!  You are the first person to actually try to answer this
question, one I've been asking for three months.

On your first point: there is nothing in the law that even suggests that
a married couple should stay sexually faithful to each other (at least
in Oregon) nor is there any legal penalty if they don't.  The pressures
for monogamy and against promiscuity are religious or social, and are
not in the law (again, this may not be true in all states, but I believe
it is in most, certainly it's true in Oregon).  Therefore, it isn't
clear to me that extending the marriage laws to same-sex couples would
necessarily change to current situation, but I concede that it might
somewhat.  However, it isn't clear to me that this would be the best way
to go about this goal, that the "improvement" would be worth the cost,
or even if this is a legitimate purpose for the law.  You yourself seem
to be hedging on that: you say, "we might argue".  Well, do you argue
that or not?

On your second point: it isn't clear to me that changing the marriage
laws would achieve or increase the assimilation you desire.  Included in
the law is not the same as accepted by society, especially if the change
in the law is accomplished by judicial fiat, and not by a vote of the
people.

You seem to argue that changing the marriage laws would reduce
homophobia and therefore reduce suicide and other ills, i.e. that some
of the problems associated with homosexuality are because of societies
attitude toward homosexuals, and not because of the nature of
homosexuals themselves.  Well, that is a testable proposition.  There are
current societies that are far more accepting of homosexuals.  What is
the evidence?

Based on studies between the U.S. and the Netherlands and Denmark (which
are both more accepting of homosexuals), decreasing the sanctions against
homosexual behavior does not increase individual happiness or trust in
others.  Distress does not decrease as tolerance is increased.[1]

>>Exactly why do you want the state interfering in the interpersonal
>>relationships of homosexuals?  I'm listening.
>
>I'm not suggesting every gay couple must rush out to get married, but
>why prevent them?

For the umpteenth time: they are not prevented from marrying.  There is
just no legal recognition or benefit to same-sex unions.  That doesn't
mean they are forbidden.  You probably missed it, so I'll repeat what I
said back in October:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[In answer to "what do Gay Rights groups want?"]

This isn't hard to figure out or understand.  What they want is acceptance,
or even approval.  After a lifetime of being told they're not, they want to
be told they are ok.  And who can blame them?  Certainly not me.  The
problem is, there are certain things that are beyond the power of the law.
The effort to get these things through the law, not only won't work, it is
likely to be counter effective.  If fact, I think it already has been.

Someone on this thread asked if I had been to Oregon and knew about
measure #9.  I *live* in Oregon.  Measure 9 is a reaction to the Gay
Rights legal agenda, not the other way around (in fact, the OCA was
formed to oppose Gay Rights).  The OCA and measure 9 are wrong, and I
will [and did] vote against it, but so is the legal agenda of the Gay
Rights activists.  This battle hasn't helped anyone, and has stirred up
appalling ugliness all around.

I only want what is best for homosexuals (and everyone else) and I want
them to be free to live their private lives as they see fit.  I believe in
tolerance (see "The Virtues of Toleration", by John Gray, "National
Review", October 5, 1992, pg 28.).  Tolerance is not what the Gay Activists
want, nor are they themselves tolerant.  I don't think this is helpful or
good.

I said that homosexuals have the same rights we all have.  Others said,
what about marriage?  Well, as has been pointed out, homosexuals can marry,
so they are treated in this regard just like everyone else.  However, this
isn't what those who object mean.  They want legal marriage redefined to
include same sex couples.  But why stop there?  Why not arbitrary groups?
Why not a man and his favorite sheep, etc.?  Indeed, why not?  Wouldn't
that be more fair?  In fact, some libertarians have proposed just that.  But
the marriage is not about being fair.  Its purpose is not just to make
couples feel good about themselves.

What is the purpose of legal marriage?  That is the question you have to
answer first before you can deal with any of the above.  There is only one
justification for the legal institution of marriage: children.  History and
recent experience shows that on average the best way to raise children, to
socialize them and pass our culture on to them, is in intact families with
the mother and father present.  This is not to run down single parents or
other arrangements, it is just a fact.  Therefore society has a profound
interest in promoting marriage and keeping them together.  In fact, I don't
think we are doing nearly enough.*  Society simply has no like interest in
keeping homosexual couples together.

Homosexuals are free to make whatever vows to each other they like.  They
can enter contracts with each other, and put each other in their wills.  As
for the tax benefits (which aren't that large and don't always exist -- my
wife and I paid a large tax penalty to get married), society simply has no
interest either way in homosexuals' continued union.  In any case, if both
(or all) parties want to stay together, surely they will.  So the question
isn't why shouldn't gay couples be able to (legally) marry each other, but
why should they?

* The legal aspects of marriage exist mainly to protect children, and those
are fine.  Tax and other benefits of marriage are there to encourage
couples to marry and stay together for the benefit of children.  Over the
years, these benefits have decreased and divorce has been made easier, at
the same time that social sanctions against living together have decreased.
That isn't all bad, but it isn't all good either.  Divorce and single
parenthood are way up, and evidence of its ill effects is overwhelming.
Powerful arguments can be made that we should do more to encourage
stable marriage.

[Later in answer to a question someone raised about a lesbian couple he
knew that were raising a child from one of their previous marriages:]

None of this is to say that your friends shouldn't or couldn't have
gotten together with their friends and family, announced their love and
commitment for one another, signed papers, and called their union
whatever they like.

I think I know why that doesn't happen very often.  Most or at least
many people don't accept homosexuals.  They think what your friends are
doing is unfortunate, wrong, a sin, or even, disgusting.  I don't think
that way, but you aren't going to change the minds of those who do by
trying to force the issue with the law.  I think that will only make
matters worse, as I think our unfortunate experience with measure #9, in
part, shows.

I've been asked, if homosexuals shouldn't try for Affirmative Action,
same sex marriages, etc., what do I think they should they do?  I don't
have an easy answer and I don't think there is one.  It may not even be
possible to change the minds of the people I talk about above.  You are
essentially asking deeply religious people to forget what they believe
the word of God to be.  I'm not sure it even makes sense to try. 
Acceptance and approval may be too much to ask (certainly from the
law).  Tolerance may be the best they can get, and I think that's what
should be the goal.  I'm afraid that by trying to force approval, they
may lose tolerance.

[1] "When Wish Replaces Throught", by Steven Goldberg, 1991, pg 58.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality