{advertisement}

Maggie Gallagher: "Sustaining civilization itself"

Maggie Gallagher on “Debating Same-Sex Marriage”:

I wish I had better news for you. It’s not everyone of course, but it’s many people trying to establish a new public norm that make the traditional, Biblical understanding of human reality the moral equivalent of racism.

Combining truth and love is not easy. But it is our job, no matter how difficult.

I hope you will read Debating Same-Sex Marriage and tell me what you think. (It’s a trade paperback, so just $11 on Amazon).

Share with me what you have learned—and what you need to know—about how to combine faithfulness to the truth with love, compassion and respect for human suffering.

We need each other for many reasons, but not least of all to prevent us from withering into the caricature that too many gay marriage advocates see. This is a great work, the work of sustaining civilization itself.

Maggie Gallagher: "Sustaining civilization itself"

Maggie Gallagher: “Sustaining civilization itself”

Maggie Gallagher on “Debating Same-Sex Marriage”:

I wish I had better news for you. It’s not everyone of course, but it’s many people trying to establish a new public norm that make the traditional, Biblical understanding of human reality the moral equivalent of racism.

Combining truth and love is not easy. But it is our job, no matter how difficult.

I hope you will read Debating Same-Sex Marriage and tell me what you think. (It’s a trade paperback, so just $11 on Amazon).

Share with me what you have learned—and what you need to know—about how to combine faithfulness to the truth with love, compassion and respect for human suffering.

We need each other for many reasons, but not least of all to prevent us from withering into the caricature that too many gay marriage advocates see. This is a great work, the work of sustaining civilization itself.

Maggie Gallagher: “Sustaining civilization itself”

Regnerus deconstructed: How a new study misrepresents same-sex parents

A recently published study by sociology professor Mark Regnerus purports to show that children of same-sex parents experience a significant degree of negative outcomes, contrary to numerous earlier studies on LGBT parenting. Most notably, the new study alleges that the children of lesbian mothers are more likely to be on public assistance, more likely to be unemployed, less likely to be employed full-time, more likely to be cohabitating, less likely to be married, more likely to have had an affair, more likely to have had an STI, more likely to have been in therapy recently, more likely to have recently thought about suicide, more likely to have been raped, and more likely to have been molested by an adult.

These findings would certainly be surprising – if they were supported by the evidence. While these results have been widely reported as representative of the parenting skills of same-sex parents, the study itself can tell us almost nothing about this. The shortcomings of its design make this impossible.

The study was conducted by surveying a representative sample of nearly 3,000 young adults aged 18 to 39, who were sorted into 8 categories of family structures: an intact biological family of a married mother and father, lesbian mothers, gay fathers, adoptive families, biological parents who divorced after their children were grown, stepfamilies, single parents, and all other kinds of families.

However, the groups designated as “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” are actually defined by whether one of the respondent’s biological parents ever had a same-sex relationship during the respondent’s childhood. Little information is given about the nature and duration of these relationships, and the set of people whose parents once had any kind of same-sex relationship is not identical to the set of people who were raised in a household with same-sex parents. Same-sex relationships aren’t limited to committed same-sex couples raising children. This definition could also encompass a same-sex affair outside of an opposite-sex marriage, a parent who services clients of the same sex in the course of sex work, or same-sex activity within the context of an open relationship. For the purposes of this study, these situations are all lumped in with committed same-sex partners raising children.

The labels of “lesbian mothers” or “gay fathers” also ignore the fact that having had at least one same-sex relationship does not necessarily make someone gay, any more than one opposite-sex relationship makes someone straight. In an article in Slate Magazine, Regnerus says, “our research team was less concerned with the complicated politics of sexual identity than with same-sex behavior.” But the study says nothing about the nature or extent of that behavior aside from whether it was ever present to the slightest degree, or completely absent as far as the respondents were aware.

What little data the study does provide in this area mostly pertains to the length of time the respondents spent in a household with same-sex partners, which turns out to be… not much. Of the respondents in the so-called “lesbian mothers” group, who numbered 163, only 57% reported living with their biological mother and her same-sex partner for at least 4 months, and 23% lived with them for at least 3 years. In the “gay fathers” group, numbering 73 people, 23% said they lived with their biological father and his same-sex partner for at least 4 months, and less than 2% lived with them for at least 3 years.

There are two flaws in comparing these respondents to those in the “intact biological families” group as a measure of the effects of same-sex parenting. First, this suggests that while the 18 years spent with one’s married heterosexual parents are responsible for these positive outcomes, the mere months that many respondents spent in a household with same-sex parents must be responsible for their negative outcomes. This completely ignores the effects of whatever other family structures they were a part of during the many years that they did not spend with their same-sex parents. And in the case of those who spent no time living with a parent’s same-sex partner, how could any of their outcomes possibly be attributed to same-sex parenting?

Second, Regnerus’ 8 categories of family structures are not mutually exclusive. A respondent with a parent who had at least one same-sex relationship could also have lived with their married biological parents for their entire childhood, or had a stepfamily, an adoptive family, a single parent, or some other kind of family. Regnerus acknowledges this, and states that he “forced their mutual exclusivity” for the sake of “maximizing the sample size” of the “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” groups. Unfortunately, this makes any comparison between the “intact biological families” group and either of the “gay” parent groups practically useless.

Regnerus has filtered the other six groups – biological parents, stepfamilies, adoptive families, later divorced parents, single parents, and all others – so that they consist only of parents who are believed to be exclusively heterosexual. But he’s constructed the two “gay” parent groups so that they consist of a hodgepodge of these family structures. Every other group contains only one type of family. The “gay” parent groups contain potentially all of them.

Regnerus’ treatment of these groups thus fails to separate the possible effects of having a stepfamily, a single parent, divorced parents, married biological parents, or being adopted, from the effects of a parent having at least one same-sex relationship. As a result, the outcomes that he attributes to same-sex parenting could just as well be due to family instability. He isn’t comparing married heterosexual parents whose children lived with them for 18 years to committed same-sex couples whose children lived with them for 18 years. He’s packed the “gay” groups with divorces, remarriages, adoptions and single parenthood, and then compared them to intact heterosexual families. Of course the results would reflect unfavorably on the groups he’s designated as gay. But they don’t tell us anything about the outcomes for children who were raised by committed same-sex parents for a substantial portion of their childhood.

Regnerus himself has admitted to these shortcomings, but claims that there was no way to overcome these limitations. On his blog, he wrote:

One of the key methodological criticisms circulating is that-basically-in a population-based sample, I haven’t really evaluated how the adult children of stably-intact coupled self-identified lesbians have fared. […] And I’m telling you that it cannot be feasibly accomplished. It is a methodological (practical) impossibility at present, for reasons I describe: they really didn’t exist in numbers that could be amply obtained *randomly*. It may well be a flaw-a limitation, I think-but it is unavoidable. We maxxed Knowledge Networks’ ability, and no firm is positioned to do better. It would have cost untold millions of dollars, and still may not generate the number of cases needed for statistical analyses.

Considering how many inaccurate stories about same-sex parents have been published because of what his study falsely claims to show, this is an especially weak excuse. If the data aren’t there, then the data just aren’t there. This doesn’t mean you can misrepresent committed same-sex parents by grouping them with all kinds of disrupted families and different living situations. It means your study simply isn’t capable of examining the competence of same-sex parents. And Regnerus should have admitted that in the first place.

Regnerus deconstructed: How a new study misrepresents same-sex parents

Good comment of the day

On my video about “non-denominational” public school prayers, someone left this comment:

in junior high school we proposed ‘Invictus’ – by William Ernest Henley as a non-denominational invocation to replace other pledges and prayers in school. Didn’t go over well. What do you think?

I don’t know how I managed to miss this poem. It reads like a Klingon war song:

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

It may not be entirely secular, but it is entirely badass.

Good comment of the day

The Traditional Values Coalition's beauty standards

Warning: Transphobia and social conservatism ahead.

The “Traditional Values Coalition” once again has their hackles up over the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and this is the unapologetically hateful email they sent out yesterday:

Terrifying, isn’t it? If we can’t discriminate against trans people, then they might be able to hold a job, possibly even one that involves working with children! It’s almost like they think they’re human or something.

While there’s no information about the person depicted in their email or how they identify (and I doubt the TVC bothered to ask before using their picture), the attempt to police the appearance of trans people is obvious. It’s also a distraction. “Look, trans women are scary!” isn’t their true objection at all. Would they be equally upset about cis women being allowed to teach children if these women don’t meet a mainstream standard of feminine attractiveness? No. And would they suddenly be okay with trans women teaching children if they were  all beauty pageant contestants? Not a chance. They don’t have a problem with trans people because of how they look. They have a problem with trans people because we exist.

(via Jeremy Hooper/Good As You)

The Traditional Values Coalition's beauty standards

The Traditional Values Coalition’s beauty standards

Warning: Transphobia and social conservatism ahead.

The “Traditional Values Coalition” once again has their hackles up over the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and this is the unapologetically hateful email they sent out yesterday:

Terrifying, isn’t it? If we can’t discriminate against trans people, then they might be able to hold a job, possibly even one that involves working with children! It’s almost like they think they’re human or something.

While there’s no information about the person depicted in their email or how they identify (and I doubt the TVC bothered to ask before using their picture), the attempt to police the appearance of trans people is obvious. It’s also a distraction. “Look, trans women are scary!” isn’t their true objection at all. Would they be equally upset about cis women being allowed to teach children if these women don’t meet a mainstream standard of feminine attractiveness? No. And would they suddenly be okay with trans women teaching children if they were  all beauty pageant contestants? Not a chance. They don’t have a problem with trans people because of how they look. They have a problem with trans people because we exist.

(via Jeremy Hooper/Good As You)

The Traditional Values Coalition’s beauty standards

A burst of illogic from Julia Gillard

When asked to defend her opposition to marriage equality, this was the best the Australian PM could do:

Prime Minister Gillard drew on her own relationship to defend her opposition to same-sex marriage on ABC TV last night.

Ms Gillard is not married to her long-term partner Tim Mathieson, but said that didn’t mean they weren’t in a committed relationship.

“I think you can have a relationship of love and commitment and trust and understanding that doesn’t need a marriage certificate associated with it,” Ms Gillard told Q&A.

I see. So, since we know that straight people can have loving relationships without a marriage certificate, that means we don’t need legal recognition of straight marriages. Makes sense, right?

Wait, you mean that wasn’t what she was saying? She was actually arguing against recognizing gay marriages? And this is just another disingenuous argument selectively applied to gay people?

No way.

A burst of illogic from Julia Gillard

Founder of "bridge-building" Christian/LGBT organization refuses to say that being gay isn't a sin

The Marin Foundation received widespread attention from a back-patting post by one of its members, who wrote “I Hugged a Man in His Underwear” after attending a pride parade (an achievement which, honestly, elicited little more than a “so what” from me). While many people were pleasantly surprised to see Christians apologizing for religious homophobia, a closer look at the Marin Foundation revealed that the organization isn’t quite so innocuous, and the impression that they accept LGBT people isn’t all that accurate. A 2006 story about Andrew Marin in the Chicago Reader reports:

Marin may be more comfortable with homosexuality than the average evangelical, but he shares a belief in the Bible as the inerrant word of God. Which invites the question: does he consider homosexuality a sin?

When I ask it, Marin writes the question down on a piece of paper and studies it carefully. “It’s theologically sloppy to say it’s not a sin,” he replies. But he quickly adds that all Christians are sinners, according to Romans 3:23. “We’re all dealing with something.”

In their FAQ, the Marin Foundation won’t give a direct answer to “Do you think homosexuality is a sin?”, instead dismissing the validity of the question entirely:

The one common theme of these “Big 5” is that they are all close-ended, yes-or-no questions. Each of them must be answered with one word and they are all meant to end conversation. Based solely on one’s close-ended answers, it is easy to label, judge and dismiss the other community entirely. Thus we dehumanize a community based off of a word rather than create a productive conversation. In essence, by close-ended answers either the Christian or the LGBT community judges who you are, what you believe, whose team you’re on and how you should be treated.

Most recently, Marin himself refused to tell pro-LGBT Christian activist John Shore that being gay isn’t a sin. Some people defended this by claiming that it was impossible for the Marin Foundation to answer this one way or the other, because doing so would alienate either the conservative Christians or the LGBT people that the organization is trying to reach out to and bring together. This is a poor excuse, because refusing to say that being gay isn’t a sin is alienating to LGBT people anyway. Marin’s silence indicates that either he does believe that being gay is a sin, or he doesn’t but lacks the courage to say so outright. Both of these possibilities are disrespectful to LGBT people.

The question is so simple that evading it is a reliable sign of dishonesty. If sin is defined as transgressing a binding moral code that’s defined by a deity, then being gay or having a gay relationship is either a contravention of that moral code, or it is not. It is a sin, or it is not. For atheists, this is an especially easy question to answer, because there is no deity to define such a moral code in the first place. In the case of religious believers, if they make any claim to know the content of this divinely commanded moral code in any other context, then asking them how this applies to LGBT people should be fair game. And Marin’s “whatever, everything’s a sin” approach still uniquely stigmatizes gay people in a way that straight people are not.

He does get one thing right: a yes or no answer to whether being gay is a sin really does make it easy to label and judge people and what they believe. What he doesn’t understand is that this is the point. The answer to the question does tell us what they believe – it tells us whether they believe that the almighty creator of the universe, whose powers extend to rewriting morality itself, has decreed that our lives are contrary to its will. There is nothing wrong with simply wanting a clear answer on whether they believe this is the case, and a direct question is only intimidating to people like Andrew Marin who won’t give an unambiguous reply. That’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

Founder of "bridge-building" Christian/LGBT organization refuses to say that being gay isn't a sin