I just found this on the family research council [don't capitalize their name!]. Such douches, although it further convinces me that the only true barrier against LGBT acceptance are those pesky people who are raised or indoctrinated into the fundie lifestyle, and are scarred for life. Which means that at the very least, the climate for untraditional families will improve as these people die off naturally, replaced by more accepting moderates. I am curious to know the mortality rate for fundies, and think that this would be worthy of a grand research study measuring the evolving standards of decency in society.
Back to these "ten arguments", I just wanted to go through them one by one with my own responses, particularly when I've been so curious lately about my future "hypothetical family". I mean obviously I want to know how accepting the United States or France will be in the future taking into the consideration the recent surge in neoconservatism, a word that I always misuse. I refuse to be pigeonholed in some lame state like Vermont when I could be frolicking in the wheat fields of Kansas* wheat or the endless highways of South Florida with my "gaybies".
1. Children hunger for their biological parents.Homosexual couples using in vitro fertilization (IVF) or surrogate mothers deliberately create a class of children who will live apart from their mother or father. Yale Child Study Center psychiatrist Kyle Pruett reports that children of IVF often ask their single or lesbian mothers about their fathers, asking their mothers questions like the following:"Mommy, what did you do with my daddy?" "Can I write him a letter?" "Has he ever seen me?" "Didn't you like him? Didn't he like me?" Elizabeth Marquardt reports that children of divorce often report similar feelings about their non-custodial parent, usually the father.
False. That's what they've been taught to do by the overtly heteronormative media. As someone who has never met like 75% of his "blood family", including but not limited to dozens of cousins, dozens of aunts and uncles, quite a few grandparents and a parent, I can tell you from experience that I don't spend my days yearning in agony for my biological parent [Bema Sr., apologies to April for turning her blog into ancestry.com and the Bema family reunion] any more than I do "yearning in agony" for the next episode of 30 Rock. I'm not going to say that this applies to every baby from a "broken home", but the difference is especially sharp when it applies to a two-parent LGBT household where the only thing separating them from an "ordinary" heterosexual and sterile couple is their sexual orientation. They both share the need to bring an outsider into the loop to have a baby; in either case, the child would go grow up with the conception of their nontraditional parents being equivalent to biological parents, and it's not like that's some terrible trauma to the child.
Wow. If this isn't the most paternalistic explanation I've heard in support of a father, although it can be said that any argument in favor of having a father is paternalistic. The clear solution here is to develop a perfume for those underprivileged girls who don't have a father, called "Electra, by Sigmund Freud." Once again, in re-invoking this antiquated concept, fundies are claiming that a man is required for female fulfillment at every stage of a woman's life.
Essentially the same argument as #2. Homosexual child-rearing is wrong, because it's wrong.
4. Evidence on parenting by same-sex couples is inadequate.A number of leading professional associations have asserted that there are "no differences" between children raised by homosexuals and those raised by heterosexuals. But the research in this area is quite preliminary; most of the studies are done by advocates and most suffer from serious methodological problems. Sociologist Steven Nock of the University of Virginia, who is agnostic on the issue of same-sex civil marriage, offered this review of the literature on gay parenting as an expert witness for a Canadian court considering legalization of same-sex civil marriage:Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research. This is not exactly the kind of social scientific evidence you would want to launch a major family experiment. Steven Nock, affidavit to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding Hedy Halpern et al. University of Virginia Sociology Department (2001).
First of all, we're not experimenting with people's lives here, gaybies vs "ordinary" children: the final showdown. At the end of this civil rights phase, homosexuals are not just going to say, "Well, you proved us wrong with science. Let's call it a day." Second of all, what they fail to take into account is that billions of people have already been raised by homosexuals, they just didn't know it. There's no way you could accurately conduct a study that both conformed to scientific ethics and is mildly accurate on sexual orientation. You could only find out someone's true sexual orientation if you followed them everywhere and tracked their every move and generally conducted the experiment á la Tuskegee with blind subjects, but you can't do that. You have to rely on biased self-reported information. A child-rearing couple isn't going to participate in a study and disclose their true orientation when that information could wind up in the hands of their spouse. The determination of gaybies and ordinary babies is undefined like brackish water so, at best, we can only study characteristics like household wealth or single-vs-double parents, not orientation. So fuck you, Steven Nock, you fail.
This is too good to be true. Apparently, not following stereotypes means you have a disorder to the frc. Tee-hee-hee, Rachel Maddow has a disorder because she cuts her hair short. Oh, and even though all studies present "flaws" according to Nock, supra, we'll let it slide if you fit our agenda.
Notice how the study says that children of lesbians are more likely to report homoerotic attractions. They interpret this as a bad thing, but it is actually an argument in favor of homosexual child-rearing, since these children have been freed from the bonds of repressing any and all homosexual interest even if it is true and exists.
Hey, as long it's consensual.
Well, I've already stated before that I can procreate just as well as straight couples without any sexual effort. I could get other people to do it for me. The country has no need to constantly expand it's population unless you feel that Americans constitute some master race that needs to win the fertility marathon. While we're at it, why don't we annex Canada so we have some more lebensraum... I mean, space for suburbs? Anyway, traditionally, marriage has not been for the benefit of the child so much as for the benefit of the husband and the piece of property he uses to make issue.
I really couldn't slog my way through this one. Somehow, having two fathers cheapens the institution of fatherhood.
What they're trying to get at is the fact that, when you have two same sexed people in a couple, one can't be naturally dominant over the other in the power usually derived from their gender, thwarting the attempts of good men everywhere to subordinate their wives. The University of Virginia is a conservative fuckfest with lots of mutual mental masturbation** [3M, the scourge of academics], so why would I listen to their research and opinions? Mavis Hetherington sounds like a fin-de-siecle Freudian psychoanalyst who still believes in frigidity and feminine hysteria andwrites scrip for magnesium smelling salts, and I've inferred all that merely by looking at his name.
Do you know why my step-father makes more than my mother? Because he has a woman to take care of their children so he can "devote" himself to working. My mother has the same educational and career commitments as him yet she always ends up taking care of the children and the house more. As to the word domesticate and the dichotomy of usage they present here, I think they're trying to make fun of S and M collars associated with gays, since "domestication" for straight people is different from the "domestication" of gay men which involves "distinctive sexual patterns".
The feelings I hold about the family research council should have been made clear, and I lobby that we add one of those side widgets entitled "Conservative Hate Fest + kesha***" where they can simmer for the life of this blog.
*Is that what they grow in Kansas?
** I love Annie Hall too much.
***Fulfilling an ancient promise?