Think of the children

Frequently when groups oppose LGTB rights, they invoke the children as an argument. This is something we have seen in the US, where organizations like NOM (National Organization for Marriage), and something which could be seen during last year's referendum on same sex marriage in Ireland.

There are generally two types of arguments:

1. That children that doesn't grow up in wholesome classic heterosexual families, will suffer one way or the other.
2. That by granting rights to LGTBs, it teaches the children that it is alright to be LGTB.

The first argument is usually the most common, since many people since to have a idealized view of married heterosexual couples - especially in the US, where there still seems to be a taboo around the concept of unmarried people getting children. Elsewhere, like in my native Denmark, there isn't the same taboo about getting children without getting children, and I know many people who has lived together for many years, raising their children, without getting married.

Unsurprisingly, to anyone who has been paying attention, there is no evidence that children raised by a heterosexual married couple are any better of than children raised by a homosexual couple (see e.g. Children of same-sex couples are happier and healthier than peers, research shows) or even single parents. Rather it depends on how stable the household is, and other socio-economic factors.  

For a nice overview of the state of research on the area, including the flaws of the few studies that anti-LGTB groups tend to reference, I can recommend What does the scholarly research say about the wellbeing of children with gay or lesbian parents? on Columbia Law School's public policy research portal What We Know.

The second argument, that being accepting of LGTB means that children learn it is alright to be LGTB, is not often stated explicitly, as the groups opposed to LGTBs generally realize that this sounds bigoted. Of course, this only holds for groups that are trying to pretend that they aren't so - religious groups which uses religion as a foundation for their bigotry, doesn't seem to have the same resistance to demonstrate it.

I think it hardly goes without saying that such an attitude can be harmful towards children who fall within the LGTB spectrum. 

Acceptance of LGTB, both in general and in the specific case of a child being LGTB, is a much more healthy environment for LGTB youth to grow up in.

This has been demonstrated again and again, and latest through a study of the well-being of openly transgendered children: Study: Transgender children allowed to live openly fare well

The study looks into the well-being of children who are transgender, and whose parents have accepted them. The result is that these children fare about equally to other children.

There are some flaws in the study, which the researchers also acknowledge in the article, but it shows the benefits of parents accepting their children as they are, and that the psychological well-being of transgendered children can be as good as other children, which is not something that is part of the common discourse when it comes to these issues. As the article states:

The findings are “truly stunning,” given previous studies showing high rates of mental health problems including suicidal behavior in transgender children, Dr. Ilana Sherer, a Dublin, Calif., pediatrician, wrote in a Pediatrics editorial. Most previous research is in children who haven’t come out, Olson said.

So, when bigots try to use the well-being of children as their arguments, they are not only using an argument that has been shown to be untrue, they are also using an argument which has been shown to be harmful to children.

Responding to a comment

My last post was about a civil rights issue, and those always tend to draw in new readers who leave comments disagreeing with me. This also happened this time, when a commenter calling himself sonAmerica wrote, and I thought I'd respond to the comment publicly.

Prop 8 isn't an issue about "rights". It is about preserving the definition of "marriage" as between a man and a woman.

Marriage has throughout history been between a man and several women, yet it seems like people are ignoring this issue, when focusing on the historical aspect of marriage.

Also, I'll point out that the argument from tradition is the same which was used when people tried to stop inter-racial marriages.

Marriage is a state sanctioned ceremony, which homosexual couples want to have available.

Gay people can do what they want, and they can even enjoy many civil benefits through civil unions and the such. But that isn't marriage.

So, in other words, Gay people can't do what they want - which is to get married to the people they love.

And I did notice that you use the word "many" when talking about civil benefits. Why should Gay people accept that they have fewer rights than heterosexual people?

Gay people aren't the issue here nor the problem.

No, it's the bigots who want to change the Californian constitution to allow them to follow up on their bigotry, which is the problem.

The problem is that 4 arrogant judges in black robes sitting in their ivory tower overturned the express will of a clear majority of California citizens when they ruled by fiat and illegally legislated from the bench when they unilaterally redefined marriage.

Like the judges did in Loving vs. Virginia.

It's the job of judges to evaluate if any given law falls outside national or state constitutions, and if they do, overrule them. That's what happened in this case.

Prop 8 allows the citizens of California to say no to Judicial Activism and Judicial Tyranny.

No, it allows bigots to make laws that discriminate against people because of their sexuality.

here are elements of the judiciary that are way out of control and are endangering the balance of power in our republic by getting involved in "legislating". This has got to stop.

How dare they insist that the laws don't break the state constitution? How dare they keep people from being discriminated?

Voting yes on Prop 8 will help put those elitist judges back in their place and let them know they cannot arrogantly overule the will of the people in a matter as fundamental to the future of civilization as the bedrock institution of marriage. That is something important enough that it should not be left to 4 elitist judges to impose by fiat.

So, your right to be bigots should overrule the state constitution?

Proposition 8 is about changing the Californian state constitution in such a way that it becomes permitted to make laws that discriminate against other people because of their sexual orientation. There are many rights which are only accessible to people who are married - simple rights like the right to visit your partner in the hospital. Yet, bigots all across the US fight hard to deny such simple rights to others, simply because their sexual orientation.

May I speak a word to my gay friends, neighbors, coworkers, and fellow-countrymen.

I doubt you have any gay friends. You're certainly no friend to gay people.

You are a minority and I'm sure you recognize that. And that is ok. But please show kindness and tolerance for the rest of us and vote with us to help preserve marriage as between a man and a woman

Back when Loving vs. Virginia was won by the civil rights people, someone could basically had said exactly the same. And many would have agreed. Time, however, hasn't been kind to that side of the debate, for good reasons, and time won't be kind to the bigoted side in this debate.

In the long run, I believe that civil rights will win out.

I know you may not have any personal parochial interest in voting yes on Prop 8. But as your friend and neighbor, I'm asking for your vote to help preserve the definition of this institution that is so important. Thank you.

"In fact, it's so important that we want to deny it to some people, because somehow, it makes it less important that everyone has access to it."

Bigotry, no matter how well you try to cover it, is not a pretty sight.

If you can vote in California, please vote no to Proposition 8. If you're marriaged, it doesn't make any difference to your own marriage, but allows others to enjoy the same benefits that you get.

I'll end this post by quoting Mildred Loving

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

Mildred Loving, Loving for All (.pdf)

Falwell still dead, Coulter still vile

The always vile Ann Coulter uses the death of Jerry Falwell to once again show what kind of person she is. Warning: the link leads to a TownHall article by Coulter.

She starts off by explaining what lessons can be learned from Falwell in her bizzaro world.

No man in the last century better illustrated Jesus' warning that "All men will hate you because of me" than the Rev. Jerry Falwell, who left this world on Tuesday. Separately, no man better illustrates my warning that it doesn't pay to be nice to liberals.

Falwell was a perfected Christian. He exuded Christian love for all men, hating sin while loving sinners. This is as opposed to liberals, who just love sinners. Like Christ ministering to prostitutes, Falwell regularly left the safe confines of his church to show up in such benighted venues as CNN.

He was such a good Christian that back when we used to be on TV together during Clinton's impeachment, I sometimes wanted to say to him, "Step aside, reverend -- let the mean girl handle this one." (Why, that guy probably prayed for Clinton!)

For putting Christ above everything -- even the opportunity to make a humiliating joke about Clinton -- Falwell is known as "controversial." Nothing is ever as "controversial" as yammering about Scripture as if, you know, it's the word of God or something.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the rest of us remembers the vile remarks that Falwell rutinely made.

Of course, Counter doesn't think that such remarks were vile. Instead, she thinks they were too mild. After 9/11, Falwell said

The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.

To Counter this is perfectly acceptable, except that he didn't go far enough.

Actually, there was one small item I think Falwell got wrong regarding his statement after 9/11 that "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians -- who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle -- the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'"

First of all, I disagreed with that statement because Falwell neglected to specifically include Teddy Kennedy and "the Reverend" Barry Lynn.

Second, Falwell later stressed that he blamed the terrorists most of all, but I think that clarification was unnecessary. The necessary clarification was to note that God was at least protecting America enough not to allow the terrorists to strike when a Democrat was in the White House.

Can she sink any lower? I feel the need to quote Welch's immortal words to Senator McCarthy (one of Coulter's great heroes)

You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

Except for the gender pronoun, I feel the same could, and should, be said to Coulter. She is a hateful harpy, who thankfully has a more limited ability to do harm to other peoples' careers, but she still has access to mainstream media.

What does it take to get the media and the politicians tp stop to give her prominence? When can we expect that the newspapers that bring her columns have had enough of her?