I received a considerable volume of feedback on my `Right-Wing Reasoning Chip' diary, and I thought I might start a `separate but equal' series of diaries. The purpose being to centrally locate some of my favorite `chip-busting' arguments complete with linked documentation.
As you know from one (okay...several) of my previous diaries, the gay marriage/adoption issue is kind of a hot button subject for me. It probably stems from the fact that I used to be a `gay-basher', and now I'm trying to make amends. I started addressing the gay adoption isssue in my "Beating the Gay Drumhead" diary. I'm doing this follow-up to show an argument that I've been using that has been working pretty darn well.
Let's start with the genesis of my second diatribe in as many weeks on gay adoption. Recently my hometown newspaper gave one of its sports columnists the opportunity to dispel the myth of the `jock homophobe.' Predictably
he failed miserably. Sports columnists always embarrass themselves when they try to write political commentary.
Much of what he writes is the same hate-filled invective disguised as Christian compassion that we're used to seeing from the Right. But allow me to call your attention to one specific part of his column...
Gay activists will argue that opponents of gay adoption cannot produce multiple, time-tested, studies to prove that there are harmful consequences for children raised by gay parents. That's true only to the extent no widely accepted long-term data on the subject exists.
Ahh...the most frequently run play in the Republican playbook--"Muddy the waters." Don offers proof that his homophobia is based in both science
and reason when he makes the following claim.
One recent study from the University of Southern California noted that boys raised in a gay home are more likely to have "fluid" conceptions of gender roles.
I presume what Don means to say is that the USC study concluded that boys raised in gay households are more `faggy' than those raised in Conservative Christian households. Otherwise I'm not entirely sure how having "fluid" conceptions of gender roles is a bad thing. What it says to me is that children raised in gay households are less judgmental than those raised in straight households. If the point is to raise bigoted children, I guess you could say same-sex parents are bad.
I haven't read the study because I don't particularly think I need to. See, there are two ways to try to bust this chip. One is to debate the minutia of Don's interpretation of this particular study. I could probably show how he misinterpreted some point, or possibly show other research proving him wrong. But that addresses the symptom, not the disease.
The `terminally ill' point Don is trying to let skate by is the idea that, scientifically speaking, the `jury is still out' on same-sex parenting. If we allow ourselves to get bogged down in an exchange of studies, then we're just making his point for him. Rather than jump around in the water with him and make it even muddier, I'd rather stand on the shore, wave my arms, and try to stop him from drowning in his own ignorance.
Scientifically this debate is over, and the `Anti-Gay Rights' crowd lost. I'm not saying that because I have some keen insight into psychology or psychiatry. I'm saying it because psychologists and psychiatrists as a whole have decided it's over. Let us all remember that we may be entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts.
[Side Note: In case you were wondering what the difference is between a psychiatrist and a psychologist--psychiatrists can prescribe medicine, psychologists can't. Put another way: Psychologist = "Keep talking, we've got a whole hour to kill" Psychiatrist = "Shut up and take this pill."]
Let's start with the psychologists. The American Psychological Association boasts that they are the largest association of psychologists with over 150,000 members. I've never especially had cause to doubt them. In 1998 the APA issued the following statement entitled "Legal Benefits for Same-Sex Couples:"
Whereas there is evidence that homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgement, stability, reliability, or general social and vocational capabilities (Conger, 1975) for individuals;...
Whereas the scientific literature has found no significant difference between different-sex couples and same-sex couples that justify discrimination (Kurdek, 1994;1983; Peplau, 1991); ...
Whereas scientific research has not found significant psychological or emotional differences between the children raised in different-sex versus same-sex households (Patterson, 1994);...
Therefore, be it resolved, That APA supports the provision to same-sex couples of the legal benefits that typically accrue as a result of marriage to same-sex couples who desire and seek the legal benefits;...
So it is the official public policy of the world's largest association of psychologists that from a purely scientific perspective, there is absolutely nothing wrong with same-sex parenting. As such, there is no justification for a ban on same-sex adoption. If sufficient scientific evidence existed to the contrary, the APA would either retract this position or never would have issued it in the first place.
Ah, but who gives a flip about those damn liberal psychologists, right? Of course the `head-shrinkers' think gay adoption is okay. But what about the real mental health professionals--the psychiatrists! They get to prescribe drugs, so they must be the real doctors anyway. So let us turn to the largest association of psychiatrists, the American Psychiatric Association. Sadly, it's more bad news for those who oppose same-sex adoption:
Numerous studies over the last three decades consistently demonstrate that children raised by gay or lesbian parents exhibit the same level of emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as children raised by heterosexual parents. This research indicates that optimal development for children is based not on the sexual orientation of the parents, but on stable attachments to committed and nurturing adults. The research also shows that children who have two parents, regardless of the parents' sexual orientations, do better than children with only one parent...
The American Psychiatric Association supports initiatives which allow same-sex couples to adopt and co-parent children and supports all the associated legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities which arise from such initiatives.
I don't know about you, but that's about the clearest looking water I've ever seen! "Numerous studies over three decades," seems to indicate the presence of "long-term widely accepted" data on the subject, does it not? And "stable attachments to committed and nurturing adults...regardless of the parents' sexual orientations, do better than children with only one parent.." seems to indicate that gay parenting is preferable to single or divorced parenting. This looks pretty bad for the `faith-based' community.
So any time a Republican tries to site some obscure study from some conservative think-tank or university, remember your official "Confessions of a Former Dittohead" talking point of the day:
"The verdict is in. The psychiatric and psychological communities at large agree--scientifically speaking there's nothing wrong with same-sex parenting.
You can (and probably will) still say that homosexuality is a sin. You can even say that gays shouldn't be parents. But what you can't say is that your beliefs are supported by the scientific community, or as I like to call them 'the experts.'"
As it stands today `Faith' and `Reason' stand on opposite banks. Our job is to make sure conservatives don't muddy the waters between them.