Published: Sunday, Sept. 23 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT
Is the definition of marriage a 'grave and serious' matter to society?
How? My wife and I have signed the legal contract, but that isn't marriage.
Marriage is the ritual we chose to celebrate the contract, and the commitment we
make to one another thereafter. Both of those qualities are entirely personal to
us, and need not have anything to do with societal expectations or those of some
stuffy church. In fact, it can be well said that it's none of their
business. Besides, before you can get too haughty about the negative effects of
homosexuals being able to call themselves married, take a look at how
heterosexuality is doing with it. I don't see any harm in letting people
committed enough to one another that they will suffer abuse for it calling
Excellent article Ms. Erickson the effort by academy to silence scientific
inquiry is truly a problem of our modern institutions. Hutterite appreciate
your opinion of course the study of which Ms. Erickson is commenting was an
attempt to do exactly what you suggest "before you can get too haughty about
the negative effects of homosexuals..... take a look at how heterosexuality is
doing with it." In this study, it appears that those off spring 18 to 30
from same sex relationships are not doing as well in the measures of the study
as the 18 to 30 year old from off spring of heterosexual relationships.
Important data and something that sociologist should be studying given the
current dynamics moving forward on making same sex marriage an equivalent.
Excellent article Mrs. Erickson. Thank you for the thoughtful commentary. We
should evaluate all science on its merits and not by political agendas and not
make any honest scientist recant under the bayonet of political correctness.
Hellooo, your comment is exactly why Regnerus was so criticized by peers - that
the study would inevitably be mischaracterized as antigay, and that this outcome
was foreseeable and was the specific motive of the ideologues [Witherspoon
Inst.] who funded it.You not-unreasonably but wrongly conclude that
"it appears that those offspring 18 to 30 from same sex relationships are
not doing as well in the measures of the study as the 18 to 30 year old from
offspring of heterosexual relationships." This is exactly what
was NOT studied. What was compared was the offspring from stable straight
marriages to offspring from broken mixed-orientation relationships. Anyone
could tell you the proper comparison would be to offspring from stable gay
marriages. Regnerus acknowledged that this was the proper comparison, but
didn't do it because it would have been more expensive. This failure is
the reason why it was so widely criticized by his peers. He knew he didn't
do a proper scientific comparison, he knew it would be mischaracterized as
antigay, and he knew his conditional funding from ideological sponsors depended
on this improper comparison. Stable families are better than broken
dysfunctional homes. Duh!
So how does any scientist do a fair, reliable study on this topic when every
study is going to be labled "anti-gay"?
"Honest inquiry" is not occurring if one points -- as Ms. Erickson does
-- at the three writers of commentaries published beside the Regnerus study as
"proof" of the study's scientific validity, without disclosing that
those three commentary writers are non-topic-experts with conflicts of interest
with the study's chief funding agency, the Witherspoon Institute, whose W.
Bradford Wilcox also is on the editorial board of the journal that published
Regnerus and the commentaries, Elsevier's Social Science Research. The peer
reviewers also had similar conflicts of interest. This conflagration of
unethical science publication practices never would have occurred at a science
journal without a study's funder on its editorial board.
Sorry to disappoint you Jenet Jacobs Erickson but documents recently obtained
via the Freedom Of Information Act verify that Regnerus Colluded with
Witherspoon Institute (the org that funded him).If the link fails to
open the webpage if you hand type it in your browser it will workhttp://bit.ly/QpVdUE
Sounds like Erickson is right; "...we need more, not less,academic freedom,
honest inquiry and civil discourse."
The more important question is, what is the relevance of this study (even if it
is valid) for the debate over the legalization of same sex marriage?And the answer is, it has very little relevance.There are a large
number of factors at work in creating better or worse, healthier or less healthy
environments for children, and as a matter of liberty, we do not regulate and
outlaw all those factors that are less optimal. Americans are protected in their
rights to live sub-optimal lives, to suffer from sub-optimal health and habits,
to be sub-optimal parents, and to raise sub-optimal children.And
that is assuming that this study has any degree of validity for these questions,
which is not the case as stated by the authors themselves.
Irrespective of whether we approve or disapprove of gay marriage, we should let
the data speak. We cannot have a rational discussion without considering the
Ideally, children should be raised by their own mother and father.When this isn't possible, children should be adopted by a mother and
father.Gays do deserve to be treated with dignity, but children
should not have to settle for less to help make this a reality.
Men and women both provide a unique and different type of nurturing for children
that the other gender cannot provide. A man and a woman together make a whole,
or a family unit. Without the nurturing of both a father and a mother a child
will lack the needed nurturing and training that is needed in life. This is not
always possible for various reasons. We have already seen that communities with
more fatherless homes have more crime, poverty, etc. The more fatherless or
motherless homes that we have the more society as a whole will erode. What
others do does affect me and society. No man is an island.
There have always been gay parents.... They just didn't tell anyone
including their spouces. What many see as the unfolding of society
is just people being honest.
The human species evolved as a heterosexual pair-bonding species. This evolution
occurred as the length of time it took for human offspring to develop into
mature adults increased. Those humans that came from the most stable
heterosexual pair-bonded parents developed into the healthier, more productive
adults. We shouldn't mess with biology to try to accomplish some kind of
sociological, feel good, politically correct goal that will inevitably lead to
more suffering, poorly adjusted children.
JSB,There is absolutely ZERO scientific evidence to support your
Of course at the heart of the issue is weather or not society as a whole
(government) has the right to determine who can have children and raise them.
Am I hearing this correctly that people (conservatives) are
actulling mulling over the idea of preventing gay parenthood? Preventing people
from raising thier own children? Yes gays are having children by a number of
methods. Having babies is easy rememeber. What definetly messes up
kids is their straight parents getting divorced.
One could very well predict the comments on this article. Even when
'scientific proof' is cited, those for gay marriage, etc. are
unwilling to believe it. If the study had concluded otherwise, supporting the
children of gay marriage, there would not have been a peep of question from its
supporters. Ultimately, this is not about science, it is about your feelings on
a controversial topic, and truth be damned.
Hutterite, perhaps it would be worthwhile to figure out your definition of
'commitment'. You seem to have strong opinions about what does or
does not constitute marraige. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what
constitutes 'commitment', because it appears from this study that no
matter the failures of what constitutes marraige by God and our society
generally,it appears far better than those who feel otherwise. Perhaps
commitment to things and values that matter most are what helps people make
greater 'commitment.' Of course, if one is being honest, then no
matter your stance on marraige, one shouldn't be afraid of independent,
time honored methods for scientific research. Perhaps that is what is so
troubling. In a day and age of shallow thinking on a host of issues, it
isn't surprising that anyone that actually did solid research would be
castigated and maligned.
Strange results from his research. I'm gay, my daughter is now 18 studying
forensic science as a paleontologist at the University, we are part of the LGBT
Community raising kids and none of us have seen this in any of our children.
What we have seen is kids who have grown up to be proud of who they are, get
into loving relationships, became productive citizens, active in politics and
human rights and helping others. So prove to me that his research wasn't
flawed and bias.
You cannot publish a study if it does not support PC dogma.Hutterite,I guess you didn’t read the article, let alone the
study. It didn’t say anything about who or what was married, it compared
same sex relationships with intact biological families.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments