Thread: Daughter of lesbian couple denounces gay marriage Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030801
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
A woman raised by lesbian parents, who states that her mum and step mum were both good parents, has said gay marriage is fundamentally wrong. Link to essay.
Her birth parents split up when she was three because her mother no longer wished to continue pretending she was straight. The father then absented himself from his daughter's life.
The problem is obvious, the father is a bastard. Regardless of one's position on gay marriage, this is the fundamental issue. Same exact thing happens when straight people split up and form new straight relationships.
How fucked up is this woman?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The problem is obvious, the father is a bastard. Regardless of one's position on gay marriage, this is the fundamental issue.
That's not what she herself says:
quote:
I loved my mom’s partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I lost.
This story reinforces my conviction that it is a mistake to present same-sex unions as a direct equivalent to different-sex unions.

I am in favour of the law, and the church, making provision for same-sex unions, but I don't think this provision makes them identical; a lot of damage can be done by trying to pretend that they are, because that sets up a false expectation.

I am still, by and large, a natural law nut, although I try to be a compassionate one.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Surely it's relatively unusual for a child to find any step-parent, of whatever gender, to be an equal or superior replacement to the parent they have lost? I struggle to see how this problem is relevant to the debate about equal marriage.

[ 17. May 2015, 16:42: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
This is an error made in some analyses of children of gay parents, that many of come from broken (straight) marriages. So the phrase 'children of gay parents' ignores such factors, and easily leads to misleading inferences, e.g. children with gay parents suffer from X. You have to track down the confounds; of course those hostile to gays may not be honest enough to do this.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I forgot to say that the most infamous study, showing such poor methodology, is the Regnerus study; no link, but easy to google.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
The blogpost does not present itself as the product of research. It's one girl's perception.

Arethosemyfeet, her perception is unequivocally that she missed, not her biological parent but a father.

It's a little ironic to see how her own words are not being allowed to stand here.

Is she to be condemned for perceiving things that way? The above comments seem to reinforce her view that
quote:
children of same-sex parents haven’t been given the same voice. It’s not just me. There are so many of us. Many of us are too scared to speak up and tell you about our hurt and pain, because for whatever reason it feels like you’re not listening. That you don’t want to hear. If we say we are hurting because we were raised by same-sex parents, we are either ignored or labeled a hater.
Is her voice to be discounted simply because it doesn't fit the metanarrative? If so, it would seem we've come full circle.

[ 17. May 2015, 18:44: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Forgive me for being a little suspicious of someone who allies themselves with homophobes in order to deliver her message. No doubt she believes what she says, and it may be that in her specific case she might have felt better having a father around (though I wouldn't bet against a "grass is always greener" situation here), it's the extrapolation from her own feelings to a general situation that requires, in her view, legal prohibition to enforce. I'm sure you can find children of mixed race couples who feel damaged by feeling neither part of one community or the other. In any case, the logic of her argument is to ban gay and single people raising children, and isn't actually to do with marriage at all (as, fairly obviously, her mothers can't have been legally married for much of her upbringing).

If I had to take a wild guess I'd suspect that Ms Barwick discovered her intense desire for a Father retrospectively when re-evaluating her childhood following a conversion to evangelical Christianity.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
She shouldn't be condemned for perceiving things that way, but I'm not convinced that children of divorced and remarried straight couples automatically have it much easier.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I just think she is also hurting because her biological parents split up, and she lost her father. But this can get conflated with subsequent gay parents, so that they get blamed for something prior. Of course, this also happens with straight step-parents, who can be resented for not being the biological parent.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Also, she says "My dad wasn’t a great guy, and after she left him he didn’t bother coming around anymore."

I wonder how she would feel now if she had retained a relationship with her father, and her mother's new partner was in addition to, rather than instead of, her father?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I can't work out if she is against gay marriage, or gay adoption, or if she thinks mothers should not be allowed to have a girl-friend. A lot of dubious extrapolations going on.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The problem is obvious, the father is a bastard.
It didn't look that obvious to me.

Reading that essay, there wasn't much said about why the father 'absented himself'. For all we know he might have been vigorously discouraged from having contact with his daughter by the mother and the new love interest.
The environment described by the writer didn't sound very man-friendly even at the best of times.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If I had to take a wild guess I'd suspect that Ms Barwick discovered her intense desire for a Father retrospectively when re-evaluating her childhood following a conversion to evangelical Christianity.
Is there no limit to what you are prepared to read into the blogpost in order for your metanarrative not to be challenged?
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
What others have said. Her problem is the heterosexual divorce, not the lesbian marriage. Lots of kids who could have written a similar essay - not just kids of divorced parents but kids of parents who are still together as well. After all, the overwhelming majority of adult men and women still looking for mommy / daddy were raised by opposite-sex couples.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
No. Her issue is lack of a male influence in her life growing up. Inasmuch as we define and play out gender roles along the biological sexes.

That's at least as valid as the contention about the hetreo divorce.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
What others have said. Her problem is the heterosexual divorce, not the lesbian marriage. Lots of kids who could have written a similar essay - not just kids of divorced parents but kids of parents who are still together as well. After all, the overwhelming majority of adult men and women still looking for mommy / daddy were raised by opposite-sex couples.
That's very sharp. It's also quite likely that she's not sure what she's missing/looking for - who is?
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
If, say, someone who grew up lesbian and later became a convinced separatist activist, wrote an opinion piece in a magazine about how she wished her lesbian mother had divorced her father and brought her up in a same-sex marriage (saying two mother figures would have given her a far better role model for her life and parenting), I'd be really surprised at someone whose reaction to it would be to feel that validates questioning the very nature of heterosexual marriage being actually 'marriage' on the basis of this one person's testimony.

And when I say 'surprised'... that's er... a major euphemism. I'm trying to be nice here!

Three decades of academic research has found no adverse consequences to same sex parenting - and some people have tried really really hard to find one.

One person activist think-pieces which oppose consistent academic findings are really only good for gratifying pre-existing prejudices, no matter what issue they're about.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
As Soror Magna said, lots of people are angry with the parents that they had, and I knew a few people who were in a total rage at conventional bourgeois marriage, and said it should be abolished.

Well, this seems a little extreme to others, but it is a valid view. But I don't think it means that conventional marriage is bad/wrong, because some people are hurt by it.

And of course, children in step-families can be furious that their parents split up - should we therefore ban divorce and remarriage?

They fuck you up, your mum and dad,
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had,
And add some extra, just for you. (Larkin).
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Adverse effects does not equate to the feeling that something was missed.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
People resent their parents' divorce all the time. Why was this woman given a microphone? Because of the gay. Her feelings are her own and I do not deny them. But the story as presented is propaganda.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The problem is obvious, the father is a bastard. Regardless of one's position on gay marriage, this is the fundamental issue.
That's not what she herself says:
quote:
I loved my mom’s partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I lost.
This story reinforces my conviction that it is a mistake to present same-sex unions as a direct equivalent to different-sex unions.
No, it doesn't. It is much more likely that the stigma society has put on children of homosexual couples and children of broken marriage, that caused her anxiety.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

I am still, by and large, a natural law nut, although I try to be a compassionate one.
Natural law? The same natural law which has homosexuality in the animal kingdom? Has same-sex parenting? Even farther, parthenogenesis in all female species?
That natural law?
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The problem is obvious, the father is a bastard.
It didn't look that obvious to me.
Not maintaining contact with your child makes this so.
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

The environment described by the writer didn't sound very man-friendly even at the best of times.
She says absolutely nothing that implies this.

[ 18. May 2015, 03:21: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That's not what she herself says:
quote:
I loved my mom’s partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I lost.
This story reinforces my conviction that it is a mistake to present same-sex unions as a direct equivalent to different-sex unions.
For her words to be an argument against same-sex marriage, you have to add additional words, as follows:

quote:
I loved my mom’s partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I lost (but another man could have replaced him just fine).
That's the necessary comparator. To show that she is arguing against the same-sex element of a same-sex blended family, it is necessary to demonstrate that an opposite-sex blended family would have been preferable.

This really isn't about letting 'her own words stand', because those words don't prove a point either way. The relevant variable has not been isolated.

[ 18. May 2015, 05:24: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
To clarify, my point is that unless a man would have been acceptable as a replacement for the father she lost, this daughter could be held up as evidence that second marriages shouldn't be allowed. Or step-parenting.

Which the Catholic church would perhaps be on board with, but that would be about it.

The basic problem is that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. "My step-mom was not an adequate substitute for my biological father" is perfectly fine as a thing for her to feel, but it's simply not sufficient as a matter of logic for the conclusion "same-sex marriage is bad".

[ 18. May 2015, 05:50: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
To clarify, my point is that unless a man would have been acceptable as a replacement for the father she lost, this daughter could be held up as evidence that second marriages shouldn't be allowed. Or step-parenting.
Yes.

Except that I wasn't arguing that same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed.

I think anyone going into a second marriage who assumes the experience will be the direct equivalent of a first marriage is likely to have difficulties. And I think the same applies to same-sex marriage.

Of course hetero liefelong monogamy is not a guarantee against any and all troubles, but other configurations bring their own problems with them. It seems to me to be illusory to pretend otherwise.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If I had to take a wild guess I'd suspect that Ms Barwick discovered her intense desire for a Father retrospectively when re-evaluating her childhood following a conversion to evangelical Christianity.
Did you place money on that wild guess ?
 
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :
 
Well, there are tonnes of kids from very traditional, conservative families who decide to support gay marriage and no one gives them microphones.

Really, I don't have a problem with her feeling the way she feels, it's not a crime to feel something. My problem arises when what she says is used as propaganda by people who want to promote her position.

This 'every child has a human right to a mother and father' stuff is sentimental rubbish when actually thought out logically. Children have a human right to a safe and loving upbringing - we should strive for that before we start nitpicking about single parents and same sex couples.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
To clarify, my point is that unless a man would have been acceptable as a replacement for the father she lost, this daughter could be held up as evidence that second marriages shouldn't be allowed. Or step-parenting.
Yes.

Except that I wasn't arguing that same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed.

I think anyone going into a second marriage who assumes the experience will be the direct equivalent of a first marriage is likely to have difficulties. And I think the same applies to same-sex marriage.
Well, if your argument goes no higher than "no marriage is quite like another marriage", then that's fine, but then I really don't see the point.

In fact you seem to be running an argument that same-sex marriages as a class are somehow inherently different to heterosexual marriages as a class. And the implication is that the difference somehow matters.

So far the only difference we have is that in some same-sex marriages*, one parent will be a step-parent. And to explain that this difference matters you'll have to explain whether or not we should be eyeing all step-parent arrangements as significantly different from families where the child lives with 2 biological parents.

*The reason I say "some" is because I'm aware of cases of children being born into a same-sex marriage. For these children as they grow up, the notion that one of their parents is "not really" their parent will be met in many cases with bewilderment or outrage. This is also true of many children who never knew any other parents besides the ones they grew up with, regardless of shared DNA.

[ 18. May 2015, 08:56: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If I had to take a wild guess I'd suspect that Ms Barwick discovered her intense desire for a Father retrospectively when re-evaluating her childhood following a conversion to evangelical Christianity.
Did you place money on that wild guess ?
Ha. "Father wound." This is exactly the kind of stuff that ex-gay ministries will tell you is the cause of you being gay.

Hands up who doesn't have a father issue of some kind?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So far the only difference we have is that in some same-sex marriages*, one parent will be a step-parent. And to explain that this difference matters you'll have to explain whether or not we should be eyeing all step-parent arrangements as significantly different from families where the child lives with 2 biological parents.
It depends what value one assigns to "significantly", but I'd say that pastorally, I probably would. There are more people involved.

Beyond that, I'm still thinking along the lines of "archetypes" as in my last foray into DH, and I haven't really developed my thinking beyond that, so anything more from me here will probably take us round in circles.

I note, however, the insistence by many here that whatever the source of this woman's problems are, they must be anything but the sex of her upbringing parents.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I note, however, the insistence by many here that whatever the source of this woman's problems are, they must be anything but the sex of her upbringing parents.
But I'm explicitly not insisting that. I'm pointing out that, as a matter of logic, she hasn't actually narrowed down her problems to that source. There are multiple possible sources, and she's fixed on one.

In addition, as others have pointed out, her anecdotal fixation is at odds with the research. That makes it less likely. Not impossible, but less likely.

[ 18. May 2015, 09:08: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
No, that's all right, I wasn't targeting you, and I agree with your statement above. What I think would be wrong would be to discount her experience merely because it doesn't square with an agenda.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
What about her agenda? Of nixing all same-sex marriages because the one she was brought up in is no longer to her satisfaction?

The glaring problem with most "why you need a father and mother" arguments, and "why you need a man and a woman in a couple" arguments, is that they swallow a camel to strain a gnat. There is such a strong focus on working out how to exclude the small number of same-sex couples that there's a tendency to forget what is being created is actually a purported description of the 90% plus of the population that is straight.

Any time someone says "you need a father to do X" in an attempt to discount lesbian parenting, it comes with a message to all straight men: if you don't do X, you're inadequate as a father - or worse still, you're inadequate as a man - even if the reason you don't do X is because your wife or someone else around is better at it or prefers it.

This was neatly illustrated a few years ago by an Australian Senator, who rhetorically asked, if a boy was raised by a lesbian couple, who would teach him how to fish or take him to his football matches? He succeeded in angering a very large number of straight women who had spent years getting up on Saturday mornings to take their sons to football matches.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Probably their husbands too, because taking children to their extracurricular activities is traditionally considered to be women's work. And any daughters who happen to be interested in football (mine isn't, thank God).

I can name three of my (female) friends who spend their Saturday mornings freezing their **** off cheering their offspring's team without stopping to think.

Sounds like this woman would have had problems in relating to any step-parent, but try convincing her of that. Interesting that it is somehow her mother's fault for being a lesbian, rather than her father's for (a) being a jerk and (b) abandoning her.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Her feelings are fine - after all, unrequited love seems to be an almost universal experience in childhood, and, some argue, an essential one, and maybe important in spiritual/religious feelings.

Blaming your parent(s), also fine, and again, probably important in effecting a separation from them, or not being overly identified with them.

But then there seems to be a 'therefore' coming in, well, yes, it's tempting to find a general solution to your own unrequited love. I can't remember who said, the catastrophe has already happened, and you can't undo it through others.

I think Tolstoy was wrong also, families are unhappy in fairly predictable ways.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Having read the piece I think the lady in question is raising a valid point at a personal level, but is wrong in going on to say no SSM.

But the point she raises chimes with some children (now adult) of marriages that ended in so-called 'civilised' divorce: the adults in the case at the time may have made themselves feel better with their nostrum about it being better for the children to have two happy parents, but they hadn't asked the children how they felt.

No child likes to feel different in a bad way: most want to be average and have the same/be the same as everyone else. Regardless of whether or not you get on with your step-parent (same sex or no) you would still prefer to have your own mum and dad. And if that's true for children of divorce, however prevalent divorce in their peer-group, then it is likely to be doubly true for children of same-sex partnerships.
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
Bigots love it when they can get this kind of person on message, don't they? They love it when they can find a gay person who thinks gay people are scum, a formerly successful businesswoman who has suddenly found her true calling as a housewife, a black person who says that racism isn't real and it's all the fault of PoC not getting themselves together, and so on. Be one of these people and you can get all the love you want in certain circles. Suddenly people are fascinated by what you have to say. The Daily Mail wants to write an article about you. If you become a member of a homophobic church, and you weren't particularly enamoured of your childhood, it may be easy and rewarding to fall into this kind of narrative about the world.

None of this is new. There are a lot of people in the world. Whatever opinion piece you want to run, there'll be someone in the world who has the opinion for it. There were women virulently opposed to women getting the vote. There are poor people who echo rightwing sentiments about poor people all being scum. There are immigrants who hate immigrants. There are children of gay parents who don't think that gay people should be parents.

The point is that people LOVE confirmation of their views - it makes them feel warm and fuzzy and superior. We're all guilty of this. Someone who goes against the expected views from their group is even better for confirmation. We love them and clasp them to our bosom and share their views everywhere. Incidentally, liberals do this as much as conservatives. Get one very rich person who says rich people should be taxed more and you can guarantee it'll be all over tumblr in minutes. Hate on people like your family, and you will get an incredible amount of love and attention from other people who also hate your family and want to feel justified in doing so.

I'm very conscious of this because I could be one of these people if I wanted to reap the awards of attention and affirmation. I've mentioned before that I dated women and identified as a lesbian until I was 29, and then I met a guy and married him (and we're repulsively happy). If I went to certain churches and told them this story, threw in a bit about Jesus and transformation and how hetero marriage is so much better than my previous relationships I could be one of these people. If I went further and claimed that all gay relationships are loveless shams I could appear in articles on all sorts of rightwing websites and probably give talks at churches and lap up the admiration.

I haven't done any of this, of course, because that's not what I believe and that's not how it happened and I find all of the homophobic ex-gay crap disgusting and I see how it hurts my gay friends every day of their lives. (I'm also still not straight. Really really not.) I would never do this stuff.

So I'm wary. This story fits the narrative too well. If hits the emotional buttons of people who oppose gay marriage and want confirmation from the unicorn of the Other Side to give them fuzzies. I can see why this website wanted to run it. If she loves gay people but thinks that kids need fathers, why is she writing for people who really, really don't love gay people at all? Why is she campaigning against gay marriage if the issue is about raising children? What does she think banning gay marriage is going to achieve - is that going to push people into hetero marriages? Of course not. Gay people are going to continue to have relationships and raise children even if they can't marry. What's with all the "it pains me that lesbians think men are unnecessary!" stuff? (I don't know a single lesbian who thinks than men are unnecessary. You don't have to find them sexually attractive to consider them an important part of life. Everyone should have men and women around them while they're growing up. If by some weird circumstance you have not one male relative or friend of the family then you've missed out, sure.) The whole article a mass of non sequiturs but the audience want to avoid gay marriage and the website wants to confirm their views. It makes me weary. It will be used as ammunition by people who hate LGBT people. It will do harm. These things always do.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
I understand her impulse because I have a very similar one. I think it's important for a child to have a sibling of the opposite sex.

I don't mean to denigrate the experience of all-boy or all-girl families. I accept that very often, those kids turn out just fine. But I think there's a real advantage to growing up with a family member of the opposite sex of approximately (to within four years or so) your age. I certainly benefitted a great deal from having a sister. I'm not sure I would have had the same sort of positive experience of female influence had I been an only child, or had a brother instead.

I concede that I can't point to any scientific study that proves that children of mixed-sex siblinghood do better than those with same-sex siblings. All I can say is that I found it a benefit and it's a benefit that I'd wish on others.


I think I can say all that, and, while many people may disagree with me, or want to supplement my experience with that of their own, relatively few will think me an utter fuckmuppet for having such sentiments. Most of you will see my point, even if you think it's a narrow point, not one of general applicability. Most of you will understand how it is that I came to feel as I do. No one blamed me for wanting my second child to me a girl, given that my first was a boy.


However if I were to extrapolate from my sentiments and say, for example, to my wife who is proposing to invite her sister over: "Well, OK, I'll tolerate her as someone important to you, but she's not really your sister, is she? She'd only be your sister-in-the-full-sense if you were male. I don't like to redefine the word 'sister' from what it means in my experience - I think you should call her your 'same-sex-sibling' instead", then I'd be doing the same sort of thing as the woman in the OP. I'd be taking something important to me, and using it to prescribe artificial, condescending, and unkind rules for others. It would (to put it kindly) be an extrapolation from my experience that the facts and justice of the case don't support, and (to put it less kindly) I'm be acting like an utter fuckmuppet.

And yet the socialising effect of an opposite-sex sibling is certainly comparable to that of an opposite-sex parent. Somehow we make do with the same common word for brothers and sisters whether they are of the opposite or same sex to us. We can do the same with the words for parents and partners, too.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Eliab,

I will state right off that I disagree with you. But am curious as to why you think what you do. Forget studies for the moment, on what do you base your statement?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Doesn't Ms. Barwick's argument essentially boil down to "if same-sex couples are denied the same legal rights as opposite sex couples, especially the ones regarding raising children together, maybe then daddy would have come to my school play"? This ignores the huge problem that, given her age, the women who raised her didn't have recourse to legal marriage or the rights attached thereto. As noted by others, her problem is with divorce, not any particular configuration of marriage, and yet she's not calling for an end to legal divorce.
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
Yeah it seems to be a common beliefs among homophobes that if we make life difficult for gay people and deny them rights, they'll all somehow become straight.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Doesn't Ms. Barwick's argument essentially boil down to "if same-sex couples are denied the same legal rights as opposite sex couples, especially the ones regarding raising children together, maybe then daddy would have come to my school play"? This ignores the huge problem that, given her age, the women who raised her didn't have recourse to legal marriage or the rights attached thereto. As noted by others, her problem is with divorce, not any particular configuration of marriage, and yet she's not calling for an end to legal divorce.
Well put. I suppose she also regrets that her mother could find a girl-friend, and live with her. How do you solve that one? Presumably, by making gay identities so toxic and shameful, that nobody would dare, or, alternatively, taking the kids into care. Progress!
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I've just been reading about Egypt, where gays and transexuals keep a very low profile, for fear of being thrown in jail. I don't know how far homophobes in the US would like to go, in order to retoxify being gay. Well, hopefully, they won't succeed.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If I had to take a wild guess I'd suspect that Ms Barwick discovered her intense desire for a Father retrospectively when re-evaluating her childhood following a conversion to evangelical Christianity.
Did you place money on that wild guess ?
This is my total-lack-of-surprise face: [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Doesn't Ms. Barwick's argument essentially boil down to "if same-sex couples are denied the same legal rights as opposite sex couples, especially the ones regarding raising children together, maybe then daddy would have come to my school play"? This ignores the huge problem that, given her age, the women who raised her didn't have recourse to legal marriage or the rights attached thereto. As noted by others, her problem is with divorce, not any particular configuration of marriage, and yet she's not calling for an end to legal divorce.
Yes.

As Betty Bowers says, "Four out of five Baptist divorcees want gays to stop undermining the sanctity of marriage".

With "reborn Christians" having a divorce rate of about 33% (Barna), I'd say it's time to clean up that house before going after gay families.

I'm seriously sorry that Ms. Barwick was deserted by her dad. But I'm sarky sorry that life with the loving adults who stuck with her and loved and cared for her was just not enough, and that she feels the need to publicly dis these women whom she claims she loves. Frankly she was damned lucky and it's a pity she doesn't realize it.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
One thing I've noticed about the debate in Ireland, over the upcoming referendum on SSM, is that many of the arguments against (e.g. children should stay with their parents for life), seem also to provide arguments against divorce, adoption, single mothers, and so on. It all seems a bit surreal.
 
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A woman raised by lesbian parents, who states that her mum and step mum were both good parents, has said gay marriage is fundamentally wrong. Link to essay.
I saw a similar article a couple of weeks ago by a different writer, which is what I thought your link would go to at first. (That similar article contains a rather large lie by omission, so I have to say I am skeptical of the actual truth of the account given in the article you linked to.)

Your article seems best summarized as "Daughter of divorcees is deeply hurt by her father's rejection of her and disinterest in her. Years later, after converting to Christianity, she creatively reinterprets her childhood experiences to blame gay people because her mother was gay."

[ 18. May 2015, 21:52: Message edited by: Starlight ]
 
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
many of the arguments against (e.g. children should stay with their parents for life), seem also to provide arguments against divorce, adoption, single mothers, and so on. It all seems a bit surreal.
I almost always feel really really bad for single mothers when hearing the anti-gay-parenting arguments. They seem to have no clue how horrible their rhetoric must sound when heard by single mothers.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
People resent their parents' divorce all the time. Why was this woman given a microphone? Because of the gay.
What's a little bit bizarre in this case, is that the parent she resents leaving her isn't the parent that is gay. Blaming her father for leaving her makes total sense. But instead she turns around and blames a particular category her mother belongs to... it's all a bit arbitrary.

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Well, there are tonnes of kids from very traditional, conservative families who decide to support gay marriage and no one gives them microphones.
And further to that, one of my best friends is in a similar situation to the author of the original article: Her birth parents divorced and her mother subsequently took a lesbian partner. As an adult, my friend after reflecting on her childhood... is a zealous supporter of gay rights. No one's given her a microphone though.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ha. "Father wound." This is exactly the kind of stuff that ex-gay ministries will tell you is the cause of you being gay.

Hands up who doesn't have a father issue of some kind?
~raises hand~
I'm gay and I've always gotten on really well with my father. I've always been a bit baffled by the father-issues theory.
 
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I note, however, the insistence by many here that whatever the source of this woman's problems are, they must be anything but the sex of her upbringing parents.
A lot of us have friends and acquaintances who grew up in similar situations to the author of the article, but their life experiences have led them to very different conclusions to that of the author. Why should I disbelieve my friends' experiences just because someone wrote an article on the internet?

Instead, the conclusion I naturally come to is that insofar as the writer of the article attempts to generalize her experiences to all people raised by same-sex parents she is just plain wrong. Not only do the experiences of my own friends disprove her generalizations, but scientific studies also do.

Social experiences are complex, and there's many possible explanations for why someone feels a certain way, or what might have caused them to feel differently. The article author has seized on a particular explanation to explain her own life. It seems pretty doubtful that's the correct explanation, because we have good scientific data that her proposed explanation doesn't tend to be true in general, and because there is an extremely obvious alternative explanation available that she's blatantly ignoring (her unresolved issues resulting from her parent's divorce and her rejection by her biological father) which are well known to be a common issue for people in her situation.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One thing I've noticed about the debate in Ireland, over the upcoming referendum on SSM, is that many of the arguments against (e.g. children should stay with their parents for life), seem also to provide arguments against divorce, adoption, single mothers, and so on. It all seems a bit surreal.
Ah, but you see, those are all things that happen to heterosexuals, because life, but that gay stuff is a choice. </sarcasm>
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A woman raised by lesbian parents, who states that her mum and step mum were both good parents, has said gay marriage is fundamentally wrong. Link to essay.
I saw a similar article a couple of weeks ago by a different writer, which is what I thought your link would go to at first. (That similar article contains a rather large lie by omission, so I have to say I am skeptical of the actual truth of the account given in the article you linked to.)

Your article seems best summarized as "Daughter of divorcees is deeply hurt by her father's rejection of her and disinterest in her. Years later, after converting to Christianity, she creatively reinterprets her childhood experiences to blame gay people because her mother was gay."
She also decides that her mother should be deprived of the right to marry the person she loves. Gee, that's really repaying love with love, I wonder how her mom enjoys seeing her story in lots of conservative (and bigoted) web-sites. That's what I call really spreading the love!
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Ms Barwick is wrong to go from her own experience to a general experience - as are those who argue to the opposite. Both may well for a valuable part of a broad study, properly controlled with well understood guidelines.

Some posts above have said that Ms Barwick's father deserted her mother. Not so - what she in fact says is She left him when I was two or three because she wanted a chance to be happy with someone she really loved: a woman. My dad wasn’t a great guy, and after she left him he didn’t bother coming around anymore. It was her mother who left. Sure, the father did not come around, but anyone who has done even the smallest amount of family law (i.e. me) can tell you that his failure to show up does not necessarily mean that he had no interest. He could have had none; equally, he could have been warned off by his ex-wife. We just don't know.

As for the article quetzalcoatl links, not only does it commit the same error that Ms Barick does of drawing a general conclusion from an individual experience, it does not even attempt to put any sort of argument in between. Just the usual hobby horse that those promoting freedoms are in fact persecutors

[ 19. May 2015, 01:35: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
By complete coincidence, one of my favourite satirists has chosen this moment to take on the vexed subject of gender roles.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Gee D - just curious as to which article I have linked to, as I have only mentioned the notorious Regnerus study. Is that what you mean?
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Sorry, my error - I was actually referring to the article Starlight linked, which I saw embedded in your post. I was rushed at lunch today and did not read back as I should. The article is much worse than Ms Barwick's.
 
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
[I almost always feel really really bad for single mothers when hearing the anti-gay-parenting arguments. They seem to have no clue how horrible their rhetoric must sound when heard by single mothers.
Why? I suspect most single parents would freely admit that all other things being equal, having another parent would be a better situation for raising children than a single-parent household. There is nothing implausible about the notion that each sex adds a peculiar value to the raising of children that is by default, absent in a SSM. Of course, whether such differences materially affect child outcomes or create some sort of moral imperative, is really another question entirely.

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Instead, the conclusion I naturally come to is that insofar as the writer of the article attempts to generalize her experiences to all people raised by same-sex parents she is just plain wrong. Not only do the experiences of my own friends disprove her generalizations, but scientific studies also do.

Social experiences are complex, and there's many possible explanations for why someone feels a certain way, or what might have caused them to feel differently. The article author has seized on a particular explanation to explain her own life. It seems pretty doubtful that's the correct explanation, because we have good scientific data that her proposed explanation doesn't tend to be true in general, and because there is an extremely obvious alternative explanation available that she's blatantly ignoring (her unresolved issues resulting from her parent's divorce and her rejection by her biological father) which are well known to be a common issue for people in her situation.
These studies are all highly dubious, whether they claim to show that SSM is definitively harmful or the opposite. We have no legitimate way to quantify the overall effect of growing up in a household with two parents of the same sex versus growing up in a household with parents of different sexes. There are too many variables to account for and too many possible ways to construe what constitutes overall harm or not. The most any such study can credibly claim is that there is no evidence that SSM is harmful to something specific that might plausibly be able to be quantitatively isolated, say, future earnings potential, or vice versa.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
How does this apply to couples where one partner is transgender, and transitions later on in life?

It's about gender, not sex - and gender is fluid.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
How does this apply to couples where one partner is transgender, and transitions later on in life?

It's about gender, not sex - and gender is fluid.
Do opponents of same-sex marriage tend to view gender as being fluid and separate from sex?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Seriously doubt many of them are aware of the concept. And of those that understand this is a real thing, many, if not most, would count it as an aberration rather than a natural variation.
 
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
How does this apply to couples where one partner is transgender, and transitions later on in life?

It's about gender, not sex - and gender is fluid.
Ultimately, gender, like race, is a purely human construct. We certainly do not attempt to attribute genders to animals, plants, etc. It is an artificial set of characteristics grouped together because of they tend to be correlated, more or less, in most human beings. The discussion of the existence or not of innate differences in parenting between an opposite-sex couple and a same-sex couple should be coached in terms of biological differences between the sexes, not gender differences, because that is the argument being made by SSM opponents, i.e., both sexes each add value in parenting in a way that a unisex couple by definition lacks.

Discussing the topic in terms of gender logically means that any marriage involving one masculine and one feminine person would be the control norm, and I do not think anyone attempts to make that argument; it is another discussion entirely.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Ultimately, gender, like race, is a purely human construct.
If you mean gender is not rigid or easily classifiable, then I would agree. But gender is often tied to, but not bound by physiology.
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:

We certainly do not attempt to attribute genders to animals, plants, etc.
Um, not a biologist, but this isn't completely correct. Some biologists are studying this as gender choices seem to be observed in some animals.

[ 19. May 2015, 22:40: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Ultimately, gender, like race, is a purely human construct.
If you mean gender is not rigid or easily classifiable, then I would agree. But gender is often tied to, but not bound by physiology.
I mean that what we today think of as gender is merely our way of describing the dominant set of certain traits that usually manifest in each biological sex. While sex is clearly biologically defined, there is no reason to expect rigid bipolar distribution of gender, since while sex may lead to higher or lower probabilities of certain traits, no rigid division of gender naturally exists in the way it does with sex.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:

We certainly do not attempt to attribute genders to animals, plants, etc.
Um, not a biologist, but this isn't completely correct. Some biologists are studying this as gender choices seem to be observed in some animals.
Perhaps I should have qualified my statement with the word "sane." Sure, some people will try to personify everything, but trying to attribute gender to animals is as silly as trying to divide groups of each animal into racial categories.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
I mean that what we today think of as gender is merely our way of describing the dominant set of certain traits that usually manifest in each biological sex. While sex is clearly biologically defined, there is no reason to expect rigid bipolar distribution of gender, since while sex may lead to higher or lower probabilities of certain traits, no rigid division of gender naturally exists in the way it does with sex.
Sex is not rigidly bi-polar. The distribution of sexual classification is concentrated largely on either end, but the middle is not unpopulated.
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:

Perhaps I should have qualified my statement with the word "sane."
If behaviour classifies gender in humans, then why not animals?
Traits we consider sex-linked in animal species can be observed in the opposite sex than typical. i.e. males exhibiting "female" behaviour and the reverse. In animals with one sex, there can be behaviours associated with two sexes.
I am not saying there is a complete parallel with humans, nor that I am convinced either way. Just that it is not as cray cray as you indicate.
 
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
We have no legitimate way to quantify the overall effect of growing up in a household with two parents of the same sex versus growing up in a household with parents of different sexes. There are too many variables to account for and too many possible ways to construe what constitutes overall harm or not. The most any such study can credibly claim is that there is no evidence that SSM is harmful to something specific that might plausibly be able to be quantitatively isolated, say, future earnings potential, or vice versa.
Well the various studies have looked at dozens and dozens of different measures, including behavioral, psychological, financial, social etc. The measures are generally chosen by experts in the fields of child development, and are typically chosen because they are known to be useful and indicative. Given the studies have shown no significant differences for any outcomes any of dozens of studies have thought it might be useful to measure, it's a fairly reasonable conclusion that this is because there is no difference.
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
How does this apply to couples where one partner is transgender, and transitions later on in life?

It's about gender, not sex - and gender is fluid.
Generally opponents of SSM hold that transgender people are sad deluded souls who need to give up on transitioning and live in peace as the gender they were assigned at birth. They usually have even more issues with trans people than they do with gay people. So probably not many of them would consider this a valid question.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
On this morning's Today programme, the presenter was discussing Prince Charles' meeting with Gerry Adams. Talking to one of Prince Charles' biographers, she said, "He (Prince Charles) revered him (Lord Mountbatten); he adored him, he was the father figure that he didn't have...." It's here , at 1:55:17.

In the light of this thread, I thought it was interesting that the presenter could assert that the product of a conventional marriage could fail to have a father figure, despite clearly having a father.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
On this morning's Today programme, the presenter was discussing Prince Charles' meeting with Gerry Adams. Talking to one of Prince Charles' biographers, she said, "He (Prince Charles) revered him (Lord Mountbatten); he adored him, he was the father figure that he didn't have...." It's here , at 1:55:17.

In the light of this thread, I thought it was interesting that the presenter could assert that the product of a conventional marriage could fail to have a father figure, despite clearly having a father.
I noticed that. It's probably the commonest complaint that you hear in therapy - the distant father, who wasn't emotionally present. The old saying was that you miss them more than anyone, because you never had them. So even when moms and pops stay together - well, back to Larkin, they fuck you up, your mum and dad, they may not mean to ...
 
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
I mean that what we today think of as gender is merely our way of describing the dominant set of certain traits that usually manifest in each biological sex. While sex is clearly biologically defined, there is no reason to expect rigid bipolar distribution of gender, since while sex may lead to higher or lower probabilities of certain traits, no rigid division of gender naturally exists in the way it does with sex.
Sex is not rigidly bi-polar. The distribution of sexual classification is concentrated largely on either end, but the middle is not unpopulated.
At least in humans, sex is naturally bipolar. Of course, there are incidents of hermaphroditism and intersex individuals, but these are clearly the product of biological errors as opposed to rare, but naturally intended outcomes.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:

Perhaps I should have qualified my statement with the word "sane."
If behaviour classifies gender in humans, then why not animals?
Traits we consider sex-linked in animal species can be observed in the opposite sex than typical. i.e. males exhibiting "female" behaviour and the reverse. In animals with one sex, there can be behaviours associated with two sexes.
I am not saying there is a complete parallel with humans, nor that I am convinced either way. Just that it is not as cray cray as you indicate.
Of course one could classify typical behavior of the sexes in different species, but it still makes no sense to attribute genders to non-human species, because gender as it is thought of today is a social construct that is correlated, but not necessarily the product of biological differences in sex, and non-humans are not capable of the thought processes required to create such a distinction.

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
In the light of this thread, I thought it was interesting that the presenter could assert that the product of a conventional marriage could fail to have a father figure, despite clearly having a father.
While it is generally considered necessary to have a father (biological or surrogate) in order to have a father figure, it is obviously not sufficient in and of itself.
 
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
At least in humans, sex is naturally bipolar. Of course, there are incidents of hermaphroditism and intersex individuals, but these are clearly the product of biological errors as opposed to rare, but naturally intended outcomes.
There's such a thing as "naturally intended outcomes"? That phrase has me scratching my head, because you seem to be arbitrarily ascribing your own purposes into natural processes.

There's various animal species which are quite varied when it comes to their sex: Species that only have females, species that can change their sex during their life, species where all members are of both sexes etc.

What if intersex or hermaphrodite individuals are stepping stones in the natural evolution of humanity toward being like one of those animal species? Would that then make them a "naturally intended outcomes"?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
At least in humans, sex is naturally bipolar.
That depends a great deal on what you mean by "natural." People born intersex are a product of nature.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:

What if intersex or hermaphrodite individuals are stepping stones in the natural evolution of humanity toward being like one of those animal species? Would that then make them a "naturally intended outcomes"?
But it does not even work that way. Evolution is not a plan. What we are is the result of a slightly chaotic process. We are all born natural.
As far as evolution there is only one thing that matters: the species possesses characteristics which allow it to thrive. The variation within is mere noise.
Evolution isn't even about optimal adaptation, but acceptable enough.
The hangups on who is what and how causes too many problems.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Yeah, the whole notion of nature "intending" things is problematic to say the least.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I almost always feel really really bad for single mothers when hearing the anti-gay-parenting arguments. They seem to have no clue how horrible their rhetoric must sound when heard by single mothers.
Why? I suspect most single parents would freely admit that all other things being equal, having another parent would be a better situation for raising children than a single-parent household.
A huge problem is that all other things are never equal and just casually assuming that they are is a particularly arrogant mix of cruelty and ignorance. The assumption that seems to underlie your point is that every single parent has a loving potential spouse available to them, just waiting to start a loving relationship and help with raising the kids. This ignores the fact that very often there are compelling reasons for single parenthood and that the kids would be much better off without the abusive parent, or the parent who keeps spending the rent money on heroin, or whatever other dysfunction is in play. To go on to characterize this as "hurting" children by depriving them of some idealized gender mix of parents (as the essay from the OP does repeatedly) overlooks the many fairly obvious ways all other things often aren't equal and that single parenthood may be the best available option.

To go back to the question of same-sex parenting, in cases where a same-sex couple adopts a child (as opposed to the child being the biological offspring of one of the parents) that's usually in cases where that child has already been failed, sometimes in particularly horrible ways, by his or her opposite-sex parents. To argue that a being raised by a loving and capable same-sex couple "hurts" a child more than being raised an abusive and/or neglectful opposite-sex couple plays in to some very ugly stereotypes in a way that can't just be hand-waved away with "all other things being equal . . . "
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
But, but, surely it's better to have a nasty father than two nice mummies, because even the nasty father is inculcating some man-type stuff. And all things being equal means having a nice daddy and mummy, instead of two mummies. So it's wrong to have lesbian parents, because I say so.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
IMO, a massive factor is societal expectation and pressure. A reason people get so bent about an absent parent is this is what their society has said is "normal".
It is because we are told that there is a deviation that we see one.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
IMO, a massive factor is societal expectation and pressure. A reason people get so bent about an absent parent is this is what their society has said is "normal".
It is because we are told that there is a deviation that we see one.
True, but nobody wants to make single parenthood illegal, as far as I can see. A single mum is OK in most people's eyes, but two mummies, well, there is the X-factor here, you know they <mumble mumble> with each other's <mumble mumble>.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A single mum is OK in most people's eyes,
Well, though she appears to be bereft of a permanent penis partner, she has not formally forsworn the beloved cock.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
To go back to the question of same-sex parenting, in cases where a same-sex couple adopts a child (as opposed to the child being the biological offspring of one of the parents) that's usually in cases where that child has already been failed, sometimes in particularly horrible ways, by his or her opposite-sex parents. To argue that a being raised by a loving and capable same-sex couple "hurts" a child more than being raised an abusive and/or neglectful opposite-sex couple plays in to some very ugly stereotypes in a way that can't just be hand-waved away with "all other things being equal . . . "
[Overused]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But, but, surely it's better to have a nasty father than two nice mummies, because even the nasty father is inculcating some man-type stuff.
Yes. Like how to beat mummy within an inch of her life.
 
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
nobody wants to make single parenthood illegal, as far as I can see. A single mum is OK in most people's eyes, but two mummies, well
Yeah, I'm occasionally bemused by that. Single parenthood is relatively common for various reasons. Surely, adding an additional loving parent makes the situation better?

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But, but, surely it's better to have a nasty father than two nice mummies, because even the nasty father is inculcating some man-type stuff.
I don't really get this notion that a father and mother are both needed because a father adds man-type stuff to the child's upbringing. What exactly is this nebulous 'man-type stuff'? Is it watching sport and drinking beer? Is it being the 'head of the household' manifested in bossing others around? Is it taking the child hunting and fishing? Is it doing DIY around the house? I've never quite understood what the father/mother is supposed to add to the child's upbringing simply by virtue of being a man/woman.

I've seen vague talk about children needing both male and female role models. However there's plenty of such role models available at school / on TV / in books / in the extended family / coaching their sports teams / at their churches / anywhere else in the world, that it's never been at all clear to me why children should absolutely need such role models as their immediate parents.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
I took quetzalcoatl's post as irony tinged with sarcasm, rather then representing deeply held views.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
And I didn't think that anyone was taking me seriously.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
I thought Starlight was. Perhaps it's because I read that post after a good dinner.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
This 'every child has a human right to a mother and father' stuff is sentimental rubbish when actually thought out logically. Children have a human right to a safe and loving upbringing - we should strive for that before we start nitpicking about single parents and same sex couples.
[Tangent]

If 'every child has a human right to a mother and father', what about the children of military personnel who were killed on duty? Do they have a right to sue? If so, whom - the Pentagon, the Iraqi govt or ISIS (or equivalents)?

Does a widowed parent of young children have a duty to remarry for the sake of the children regardless of their own feelings on the matter?

[/Tangent]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
ISTM, it is helpful to bothe the parent and child to have other adults to assist. This does not need be one each of father and mother. A fair bit of the issues children have with a "missing" parent is societal expectaion.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
It's worth noting that a large number of gay couples have adopted children whose alternative was being raised in an institution, and often a not very good institution.
Florida had Ban on Gay Adoption in Florida ended by a state court. I find that legal ban rather horrific behavior by the right wing.

At a much earlier time, when this was an issue in mostly Democratic Massachusetts, I found out from social worker friends of mine, that it was a common practice to specifically place small foster children with Lesbian couple families. The children were those who had been raped by their father or the mother's boyfriend and seemed to do much better in families without that manly influence.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:

Of course one could classify typical behavior of the sexes in different species, but it still makes no sense to attribute genders to non-human species, because gender as it is thought of today is a social construct that is correlated, but not necessarily the product of biological differences in sex, and non-humans are not capable of the thought processes required to create such a distinction.
You're wrong on this as well. Social animals can have gender behavior. Primate Gender and Kinship behavior has been studied. In particular, one group which had a lot of males die from eating infected meat ended up with a new group behavior where males were not allowed to dominate as they had before. When new young male chimpanzees joined the troupe they were taught that the traditional Alpha Male behavior wasn't going to work.
In short, many social animals have sufficiently complex nervous systems to have gendered behavior. For a more dramatic example, there was a documented case where two male cuttlefish were fighting over some nearby females. A third male cuttlefish swam in, using his chameleon like properties to show male coloration on one side of his body to the females and female coloration on the other side which made him look like a female to the nearby fighting males.
 
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
At least in humans, sex is naturally bipolar. Of course, there are incidents of hermaphroditism and intersex individuals, but these are clearly the product of biological errors as opposed to rare, but naturally intended outcomes.
There's such a thing as "naturally intended outcomes"? That phrase has me scratching my head, because you seem to be arbitrarily ascribing your own purposes into natural processes.

There's various animal species which are quite varied when it comes to their sex: Species that only have females, species that can change their sex during their life, species where all members are of both sexes etc.

What if intersex or hermaphrodite individuals are stepping stones in the natural evolution of humanity toward being like one of those animal species? Would that then make them a "naturally intended outcomes"?
Of course, I am not speaking in terms of sentient intent, but rather biological impetus. DNA provides clear instruction. Survival of the fittest means that our biological processes have been winnowed towards traits that provide the greatest chance of survival and further propagation. The type of reproduction you speak of is not present in any remotely closely related species. When you look at the divergence of species towards humans, sexual dimorphism is overwhelmingly favored in similar species. Even if intersex individuals were evolutionary stepping stones, they would remain outliers, rather than the product of the processes that have become the norm in our species. Furthermore, intersex/true hermaphroditic individuals are nearly always infertile, and there are no documented cases where both types of gonadal tissue function. That clearly points to an evolutionary dead end. Hence, “naturally intended” is a perfectly apt phrase to describe what I was referring to.
 
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I almost always feel really really bad for single mothers when hearing the anti-gay-parenting arguments. They seem to have no clue how horrible their rhetoric must sound when heard by single mothers.
Why? I suspect most single parents would freely admit that all other things being equal, having another parent would be a better situation for raising children than a single-parent household.
A huge problem is that all other things are never equal and just casually assuming that they are is a particularly arrogant mix of cruelty and ignorance. The assumption that seems to underlie your point is that every single parent has a loving potential spouse available to them, just waiting to start a loving relationship and help with raising the kids. This ignores the fact that very often there are compelling reasons for single parenthood and that the kids would be much better off without the abusive parent, or the parent who keeps spending the rent money on heroin, or whatever other dysfunction is in play. To go on to characterize this as "hurting" children by depriving them of some idealized gender mix of parents (as the essay from the OP does repeatedly) overlooks the many fairly obvious ways all other things often aren't equal and that single parenthood may be the best available option.

To go back to the question of same-sex parenting, in cases where a same-sex couple adopts a child (as opposed to the child being the biological offspring of one of the parents) that's usually in cases where that child has already been failed, sometimes in particularly horrible ways, by his or her opposite-sex parents. To argue that a being raised by a loving and capable same-sex couple "hurts" a child more than being raised an abusive and/or neglectful opposite-sex couple plays in to some very ugly stereotypes in a way that can't just be hand-waved away with "all other things being equal . . . "
The question was whether a single parent household is in and of itself likely to create a better or worse outcome than a dual parent household. That by definition necessitates isolation of that variable. Of course, in real life, situations are much more complicate. The same applies for same-sex couples. Otherwise the definitive statement that single parenthood/same-sex parenthood/etc. is beneficial or harmful is completely meaningless because it would always depend on the unknown context.
 
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:

Of course one could classify typical behavior of the sexes in different species, but it still makes no sense to attribute genders to non-human species, because gender as it is thought of today is a social construct that is correlated, but not necessarily the product of biological differences in sex, and non-humans are not capable of the thought processes required to create such a distinction.
You're wrong on this as well. Social animals can have gender behavior. Primate Gender and Kinship behavior has been studied. In particular, one group which had a lot of males die from eating infected meat ended up with a new group behavior where males were not allowed to dominate as they had before. When new young male chimpanzees joined the troupe they were taught that the traditional Alpha Male behavior wasn't going to work.
In short, many social animals have sufficiently complex nervous systems to have gendered behavior. For a more dramatic example, there was a documented case where two male cuttlefish were fighting over some nearby females. A third male cuttlefish swam in, using his chameleon like properties to show male coloration on one side of his body to the females and female coloration on the other side which made him look like a female to the nearby fighting males.
The article you cited clearly refutes the notion that primates have gender as we understand it. It argues that there is greater gender diversity within apes than what we attribute to male and female humans, in order to refute the notion that gender is primarily a biological product and thus the argument that gender in humans is similarly immutable. That is in total agreement with what I previously said.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
The article you cited clearly refutes the notion that primates have gender as we understand it. It argues that there is greater gender diversity within apes than what we attribute to male and female humans, in order to refute the notion that gender is primarily a biological product and thus the argument that gender in humans is similarly immutable. That is in total agreement with what I previously said.
They cite examples that Primates have Gender diversity. That's not an argument that they don't have gender as we understand it. Quite the reverse. You're stuck with your theory that Gender Diversity in Humans is unnatural and thus have to claim that animal Gender isn't Gender to try to defend it or otherwise give us the claim that Gender Diversity in Primates is unnatural.

Both Humans and other Primates have gender diversity and roles that vary by species, society and environment. All of it is natural, and your claim that animals don't have gender is nonsense.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
DNA provides clear instruction.
It really doesn't. Not in such a simple, straightforward fashion as such a bald statement implies.

It certainly doesn't guarantee any kind of clear results, because there are a hell of a lot of steps between the existence of a DNA strand as a template for a protein and the actual, practical expression of a protein in a particular location in the body.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
The article you cited clearly refutes the notion that primates have gender as we understand it. It argues that there is greater gender diversity within apes than what we attribute to male and female humans, in order to refute the notion that gender is primarily a biological product and thus the argument that gender in humans is similarly immutable. That is in total agreement with what I previously said.
They cite examples that Primates have Gender diversity. That's not an argument that they don't have gender as we understand it. Quite the reverse. You're stuck with your theory that Gender Diversity in Humans is unnatural and thus have to claim that animal Gender isn't Gender to try to defend it or otherwise give us the claim that Gender Diversity in Primates is unnatural.

Both Humans and other Primates have gender diversity and roles that vary by species, society and environment. All of it is natural, and your claim that animals don't have gender is nonsense.
I'm struck by the idea of gender diversity being unnatural, and it's baffling. If we distinguish sex identity (male/female), gender traits (masculine/feminine), and sexual orientation, it's all natural, isn't it? I don't understand how something is against nature, unless we are talking in terms of some teleological theory (e.g. final causes).

And there is plentiful variety in animals; I was just watching some film of the delightful red necked phalarope (bird), in which the female is brightly coloured, fights over mates, and the male incubates the eggs, and rears the chicks.

The term 'gender' is taking a pummelling I suppose, since it often seems to cover sex identity today, but I suppose there is an overlap as with the phalarope.
 
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
The article you cited clearly refutes the notion that primates have gender as we understand it. It argues that there is greater gender diversity within apes than what we attribute to male and female humans, in order to refute the notion that gender is primarily a biological product and thus the argument that gender in humans is similarly immutable. That is in total agreement with what I previously said.
They cite examples that Primates have Gender diversity. That's not an argument that they don't have gender as we understand it. Quite the reverse. You're stuck with your theory that Gender Diversity in Humans is unnatural and thus have to claim that animal Gender isn't Gender to try to defend it or otherwise give us the claim that Gender Diversity in Primates is unnatural.

Both Humans and other Primates have gender diversity and roles that vary by species, society and environment. All of it is natural, and your claim that animals don't have gender is nonsense.
You are going to have to explain how you are defining “gender.” Traditionally understood, it is considered the set of traits differentiated between the sexes that are not biologically derived, but are instead learned behaviors derived from social norms. Hence, someone who is biologically male can still have feminine traits.

I never claimed that “gender diversity in humans is unnatural,” whatever that means. I also never claimed that gender diversity in primates is unnatural. What I did say was that gender is an artificial human construct. We can try to study the sex-differentiated behavior of primates in order to inform our contemporary and historical notions of gender, as the article you cited does, but fundamentally, attempts to attribute gender to animals are merely the imputation of human ideas to explain animal behavior. Non-human terrestrial species are incapable of the complex social theorizing necessary to create what we think of as gender. Thus, it is nonsense to say that animals naturally have gender, as opposed to gender being artificially ascribed upon certain behavior in a species to fit with our understanding and conception of gender.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
A huge problem is that all other things are never equal and just casually assuming that they are is a particularly arrogant mix of cruelty and ignorance. The assumption that seems to underlie your point is that every single parent has a loving potential spouse available to them, just waiting to start a loving relationship and help with raising the kids. This ignores the fact that very often there are compelling reasons for single parenthood and that the kids would be much better off without the abusive parent, or the parent who keeps spending the rent money on heroin, or whatever other dysfunction is in play. To go on to characterize this as "hurting" children by depriving them of some idealized gender mix of parents (as the essay from the OP does repeatedly) overlooks the many fairly obvious ways all other things often aren't equal and that single parenthood may be the best available option.
The question was whether a single parent household is in and of itself likely to create a better or worse outcome than a dual parent household. That by definition necessitates isolation of that variable.
"Isolating variables" sounds very dispassionate, but in a sociological context attempts to isolate variables can often be used to skew results. To take a well-known example, a lot of studies of the effect of sexism on women's careers and income will often adjust their analysis by number of hours worked (because women often have greater child-rearing demands on their time than their male colleagues) or by profession (because women often work in jobs that are less well compensated on average). Unfortunately factors like these are the products of sexism, not independent of it, so attempting to "isolate variables" has instead actually filtered out part of the effect that is being measured.

Likewise, most single parents started off as part of a dual parent household and became single parents due to some problem or dysfunction in the household. Trying to isolate that variable by comparing with families lacking a similar dysfunction is filtering out a fairly significant part of the phenomenon allegedly being studied.

[ 11. June 2015, 22:44: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
You are going to have to explain how you are defining “gender.” Traditionally understood, it is considered the set of traits differentiated between the sexes that are not biologically derived, but are instead learned behaviors derived from social norms. Hence, someone who is biologically male can still have feminine traits.

I never claimed that “gender diversity in humans is unnatural,” whatever that means. I also never claimed that gender diversity in primates is unnatural. What I did say was that gender is an artificial human construct. We can try to study the sex-differentiated behavior of primates in order to inform our contemporary and historical notions of gender, as the article you cited does, but fundamentally, attempts to attribute gender to animals are merely the imputation of human ideas to explain animal behavior. Non-human terrestrial species are incapable of the complex social theorizing necessary to create what we think of as gender. Thus, it is nonsense to say that animals naturally have gender, as opposed to gender being artificially ascribed upon certain behavior in a species to fit with our understanding and conception of gender.
You say gender is an artificial human construct, How would that differ from gender being a natural human construct? Do you think that humans naturally have gender or is it artificially ascribed on certain behaviors to fit with our understanding and conception of gender?

For an example of complex social theorizing, consider that Chimps value fairness You're stuck in the old "man is the special animal and no other animal is like him" paradigm.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0