Except that Katie is real, and the research the mailer describes about her is imaginary.
Working from what’s now “a considerable body of research on the subject,” writes Charlotte J. Patterson, professor of developmental psychology at the University of Virginia, “Not a single study has found children of lesbian and gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.”
That’s why in July, the American Psychological Association concluded, “Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents,” and voted to support such families having access to marriage.
The Measure 36 mailer cites one researcher, Kyle Pruett, a Yale child psychiatrist. Thursday, Pruett responded, “It is a distortion of my position. . . . I was quite surprised, even a little dumbfounded to see my name listed.”
(He also said, “I am numbed by the narrow-minded arrogance of the entire argument,” which may be a different point, but the Measure 36 backers brought him up.)
In other words, even in a particularly truthless election year, the main argument of the supporters of Measure 36 is strikingly, unquestionably a lie.
By an amazing coincidence, what Dr. Pruitt told The Oregonian isn’t far off from what British demographer Kathleen Kiernan told me when I pointed out how anti-SSM folks were using her work. (She called it a “misuse” of her work, and said that in her opinion the data contradicts claims that same-sex marriage causes any harm.) It’s almost as if the opponents of SSM have a pattern of distorting legitimate social science…
[Update: Screwed-up link corrected, thanks to “Alas” reader Sam!)
This tack, like so many others taken by the Yes on 36 campaign, addresses issues outside the scope of marriage itself. If they really think children are best reared by both a mom and a dad, why don’t they propose legislation that a) prevents divorce, b) prevents gay adoption, c) forces single parents to marry and d) requires all childless married couples to adopt or give up their married status. That would be much more consistent with the arguments they make against gay marriage.
Maybe that’s next.
I must say I’m surprised – I thought they made their own pseudo-science instead of distorting real science. Of course, they could be doing both, I guess.
I haven’t quite figured out if these people are distorting the results on purpose or if they read what they want to see in them. I used to think that it was all conscious distorting, but I’ve learned in the last year or so that many people have a lot of trouble understanding statistical findings. Researchers should work harder to make their results clear in ordinary language.
Though it’s probably intended distortion here…
The logical extension of the Yes on 36 argument is to require all divorced people to leave the state at once. We can’t defend marriage if we tolerate the presence in our midst of people who have broken it.
You posted a link to the wrong Oregonian article. The correct link:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_sarasohn/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1098446402156040.xml
Your link is a less detailed, more boring article about the same researcher.
Don’t believe everything you read. The No on 36 campaign’s accusations of “lies” and “fear-mongering” don’t tell the whole story.
A number of studies in recent years have purported to show that children raised in gay and lesbian households fare no worse than those reared in traditional families. Yet much of that research fails to meet acceptable standards for psychological research; it is compromised by methodological flaws and driven by political agendas instead of an objective search for truth.
In addition, openly lesbian researchers sometimes conduct research with an interest in portraying homosexual parenting in a positive light. The deficiencies of studies on homosexual parenting include reliance upon an inadequate sample size, lack of random sampling, lack of anonymity of research participants, and self-presentation bias.
In their thorough review of homosexual parenting studies (No Basis:What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same Sex Parenting, Washington:Ethics and Public Policy Center, 2001), Robert Lerner and Althea K. Nagai found little evidence to support the oft-repeated mantra that homosexual households are “just like” traditional families: “We conclude that the methods used in these studies are so flawed that these studies prove nothing. Therefore, they should not be used in legal cases to make any argument about ‘homosexual vs. heterosexual’ parenting. Their claims have no basis.”
The presence of methodological defects–a mark of substandard research–would be cause for rejection of research conducted in virtually any other subject area. The overlooking of such deficiencies in research papers on homosexual failures can be attributed to the “politically correct” determination within those in the social science professions to “prove” that homosexual households are no different than traditional families.
The bottom line is that the gay lobby is passing off substandard research on same-sex parenting as factually superior… and it just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Here’s why:
Evidence demonstrates incontrovertibly that the homosexual lifestyle is inconsistent with the proper raising of children. Homosexual relationships are characteristically unstable and are fundamentally incapable of providing children the security they need.
In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that “few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.”
In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison report that in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years:
Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.
In contrast, heterosexual couples report a much higher rate of fidelity. In Sex in America, called by the New York Times “the most important study of American sexual behavior since the Kinsey reports,” Robert T. Michael et al. report that 90 percent of wives and 75 percent of husbands claim never to have had extramarital sex.
A little-reported fact is that homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households:
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice) reports that married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships.
There is a sea of evidence that proves the virtues of traditional marriage as being best for children. It’s not just something that was made up. The No on 36 campaign should take some time to familiarize themselves with it before dismissing evidence they don’t necessarily agree with.
Only studies which disagree with my homohobic beliefs are politically motivated!
Any researcher who comes to conclusions that I agree with must be using good, sound science.
Straight married people almost always have healthy, loving, functional homes.
The gays have too much sex. This makes them terrible parents.
I, and other homophobes, get to decide what is “best” for children.
-Gender Specific
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice) reports that married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships.
“other types of relationships” meaning, other types of relationships with men.
Even their lies are pitiful.
Pingback: Damn The Man
Pingback: The Zero Boss
Pingback: Strangechord