posted
Thanks for pointing that out, Bok. I was just trying to find a term for 'heterosexual two parent family'. The extended family is so important, and I owe a great deal of my experience to aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, etc. But again, these are merely extensions of the basic unit. The parents of my parents, the siblings of my parents... at one time they were living together as a family and our family is the natural outgrowth of the union, in two individuals, of two basic family units.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nothing in particular, recently. It is just a bone I occassionally pick.
Well, I drove by Lots-o-Tots the other day. And I got my nails done and realized it would take a second income to do it as much as I want to.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amka, I agree that at the most basic level, our parents are the bedrock.
I think one of my most fortunate developmental experiences was that my dad had one last 3 month navy sub tour when I was born, but for the next 6 months he spent most of of the time with me, since his enlistment was up, and he leeched off society (ie. unemployment) for 6 months before getting a civilian job at the same naval base.
However, I put a much stronger emphasis on the breadth of love I received as a child. I don't see the relatives/church members as contingent to the family as you do, I suspect. Particularly with my cousins and grandparents, they were as important, and at times, MORE important, than my parents were.
The Gay Report, published by homosexual researchers Jay and Youn in 1979, revealed that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys 16 to 19 years of age or younger.
Although homosexuals account for less than two percent of the population, they constitute about a third of child molesters. ...
A study of Canadian pedophiles has shown that 30 percent of those studied admitted to having engaged in homosexual acts as adults, and 91 percent of the molesters of non-familial boys admitted to no lifetime sexual contact other than homosexual.
Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., and Charles B. Johnson, Ph.D., conducted a content study of the personal ads in the Advocate, the "national gay and lesbian newsmagazine," and discovered that "chickens," a common term for underage boys sought for sex, were widely solicited. Many of the advertisements in the magazine solicited boys and teens from within a larger pool of prostitution ads, which constituted 63 percent of all personal ads...
quote:In 1994, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) quietly revised its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV (DSM-IV) by redefining long-standing definitions of what constitute "paraphilias" or sexual perversions - including pedophilia. The APA added a new requirement for someone to be diagnosed as having a paraphilia: The person's behavior must now "cause clinically significant distress or impairment of social, occupational or other important areas of functioning." The change is significant, says Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, author of Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth: In other words, a man who routinely and compulsively has sex with children, and does so without the pangs of conscience and without impairing his functioning otherwise is not necessarily a pedophile and in need of treatment. Only the man who suffers because of his impulses is a pedophile requiring treatment.
quote: In 1998, a study published by the American Psychological Association claimed that sex between adults and children is not only less harmful than believed but might even by positive for "willing" children...
The APA article proposes ceasing to use terms such as child abuse, molestation, and victims and instead deploying nonjudgemental terms such as adult-child sex.
That study was retracted from being 'misused' in the courts after public outcry.
Here is some Kinsey for you:
quote:Kinsey concluded that children were sexual viable from birth and that molestation was harmless unless parents exhibited "hysteria" over the incidents.
And here is someone else:
quote: Richard A. Gardner, a clinical professor of child psychology...who is often cited in cases in which fathers charged with abuse are seeking custody, wrote, "Sexual encounters between and adult and a child are not universally considered to be reprehensible acts. The child might be told about other societies in which such behavior was and is considered normal. ..." As for the abusing father, he "has to be helped to appreciate that, even today, [pedophilia] is a widespread and accepted practice among literally billions of people" and that "he [the father] has a certain amount of bad luck with regard to the place and time he was born with regard to social attitudes toward pedophilia"
There is a lot more in this article. I've attempted only to show the a few of the studies quotes by real people, not the interpretation of the writers of the article, though I pretty much agree with them.
It might speak of 'extreme' viewpoints but it exists and legalizing homosexual marriage will bring us a step closer to this rather than farther away.
There are two more quotes that touch on the concerns I've already stated on this thread:
quote: In 1997, two lesbian activists produced a 78-minute video, It's Elementary, which uses actual footage of five schools to show teachers how to introduce the topic of homosexuality to children. The fmil was slanted for airing on San Francisco's PBS affiliate and has been offered to PBS stations around the nation. It has also been endorsed by the NEA and the American School Counselor Association.... This video is designed to teach children that "gay is OK" and elicits the sympathy of children by portraying critics of homosexuality as "gay bashers."
quote: Jaki Williams, a Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network activist at the Packer Collegiate School in New York, said that kindergarteners are "developing their superego" and "that's when the saturation process needs to begin."
Now who is trying to shove their morality down our throats? Or maybe not our throats, since we are a 'lost cause', but they intend to indoctrinate our children without our consent.
And here is different article that is a little bit of proof about our concerns that legalization of homosexual unions will damage the basic unit of society.
These are my real concerns. Some of these concerns I have personal experience with. Please address them without calling me narrowminded, bigoted, ignorant, hysterical, or trying to shove my subjective morality on society.
posted
O.K. Let's say that we know in general that there is a 50% chance greater chance in the general homosexual population of mental illness, pedophilia, etc. In the straight population, this chance is, say, 5%.
Now, let's say that I have a straight couple that wants to adopt and a gay couple that wants to adopt the same child. Should I screen each couple based on what I can see about them and discover about their history, and give the gay couple a chance, or should I automatically disqualify the gay couple based on the probability of mental illness for gay people in general?
Another point is that there are certain segments of the population that generally test higher for rates of mental illness. If we are able to disqualify gay people for candidates for adoption based on statistical evidence, then what about these other segments of the population? What about genetic screening?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This also begs the question of whether a history of mental illness should be used as criteria for adoption or parenting....
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In theory, we should individually appraise every case of parents who want to adopt.
But let me put this out for consideration. I think we can reasonably say that there are a number of homosexuals who got that way because they were molested. But no heterosexual got that way because they were molested.
I think we can reasonably say that there are a number of molested people who go on to become perpetrators.
I think we can reasonably say that there is a higher chance with the homosexual union that one or more of the partners is a pedophile. I am by no means saying that this reflects the majority of homosexual couples who desire children. But I suspect it would statistically double or triple the risk of sexual abuse of the child. This number may sound outrageous, but what I'm suggesting that if child sexual abuse occurs in 1 out of 1000 of the heterosexual population, it will occur in 2 or 3 of the homosexual population.
Risk. Should we be willing to take it? Do you think the homosexual couple seeking to adopt will be honest about their family history?
Sorrow and pain: how this must hurt those homosexuals who have no such problem and only want to provide safe and loving environments to children.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're just restating my point (edit: that is actually just restating your point but asking the tough follow up question that your point creates). I would love your opinion to my questions. (I'm not being snarky when I say this. I'm genuinely curious about your opinion.)
posted
People naturally have children. To mess with that too much goes down a slippery slope where one must conform to PC standards before big brother gives you the right to not have an abortion should you get pregnant.
But adoption is another story. Here we have an infant, already born, who needs a family. We can't, in good conscience, simply randomly toss it out to whoever wants it. And a LOT of people want it. So we have the advantage of being able to be very, very picky. And we should be. Only parents who post the lowest risk of harm and the highest chance of success for the child should be chosen.
What about older children? Typically, those children who are born of parents that have definately had their parental rights terminated because they proved to be harmful need caring families. There is not a lot of high demand for them, because they need more than most people can give and the state can be pretty disruptive too. In this case, the prospective parents sometimes need to go through even more background check and go through training, but it is at this point where I see the usefulness of caring, mentally stable homosexual parents coming into play. The need then outweighs the risk.
posted
Amka, I applaud you bringing up the hard statistics, knowing that it's going to seem offensive to a lot of people. I have read that exact pdf document you link to, and didn't bring it up here or post excerpts from it because, frankly, I didn't want to go through the attacks I would receive and the even more claims that I'm a bigot and a "gay basher"
If we all agree here that the schools have no place teaching religion (and I think we do) then I think we should also conclude that schools should not be teaching anything that attempts to undermine the religious instruction a child receives at home, particularly when we're discussing kindergarteners!
Older children that are capable of higher reasoning and able to understand that there are two sides to every debate, could be introduced to the concept, so long as no side was belittled. But I'm raising my five year old in my faith, which is my constitutional right to do. And in my religion, homosexual acts are sinful. In my religion, homosexual unions are not to be considered as equivalent to the sacrament of marriage established by God. If a school teaches my child something opposite to the teaching I give her, that school is now undermining my religious instruction.
Personally, I have a big problem with the idea of teaching kids that people who oppose homosexual unions are "gay bashers" You're putting my child in a situation where she thinks "Aren't these people talking about my Mom?"
Let's not even go into the fact that human sexuality isn't a subject that should be covered in kindergarten at all!
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Your most recent posts are one of the things that I was having difficulty addressing in your post a couple days a go. The referendum seems to not necessarily be about being gay, but about being 'mentally ill', about averages. As someone who, um, is a survivor of abuse, one of those populations that has a higher risk of carbuncles, fleas, tics, and mental illness, I have to say that playing the numbers game makes me nervous. I'm not saying I don't understand what you're saying and where you're coming from, though. I'm just nervous that as much as good thinking people like yourself might want to keep the issue solely about adoption, I'm afraid that it may balloon out....
The obvious answer, to me, seems to just not play that game at all and look for good people and not worry about whether they're gay or straight or black (another population at risk for certain behaviors...) or whatever.
posted
Unfortunately I can't read that document at work, it is blocked by our server. The numbers did seem to be from a difference set of findings than the ones thrown out there by the Family Research Council that is heavily influenced by Dobson.
Dobson started out just fine 20 years ago but most of the actual scientific stuff that I have seen in the past ten years involves a lot of junk science as well, which annoys me greatly.
The Canadian statistics in particular are very interesting.
posted
I was just reading Amka's stats, and I decided that pedophile men like sex and/or heavy petting.
Straight pedophile men take advantage of little girls, and gay pedophile men take advantage little boys. I bet you if you took a survey of girls who were abused, hetrosexual men could be painted with a horrible brush. Animals.
As to having sex with 16-19 year-olds. I've had sex with 16-19 year-olds. There was a time in my life when I was spending an inordinate amount of time trying to persuade 16-19 year-olds to have sex with me. The fact that when I was 16-19, I spent my energy and resolve trying to sleep with women as opposed to other men makes my pursuits a little less perverse and a little more healthy. In my defense, when I was 16-19, I was chasing 35 and 40 year-old women with the same alacrity. If I were chasing men, maybe I would have "caught" a few more.
In other words, Belle and Amka, look a little bit closer at your "hard statistics." It's not that the statistics are offensive, it's just that interpretations of statistics like those can run the gamut between ambiguous to ludicrous.
Now if it becomes the case that we start debating the merits of marriage between a seventeen year old and a forty year old, regardless of any party's gender, I may have something to say. But when we deny the love and commitment of two 30 year-old women, I think that's just silly.
I'm not saying that I agree that the stats she put out are correct. The problem is that you can't say with complete certainty that they are incorrect, either. So, for the sake of discussion, I am treating her stats as correct.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm saying that they are correct. I have complete faith that they are correct. But girls are attacked, by an overwhelming percentage, by heterosexual men. So much so that the idea of sanctioning heterosexual marriage could be construed as a little chancy at the least, and at the most, downright disrespectful to all of the female rape victims who have suffered the passions and excesses of this heterosexual majority. Straight men rape little girls, and I don't know if the state should be in the business of saying that the love that straight men have for women is okay.
Many, if not most, child molesters are not attracted to adult males or adult females at all. They're attracted to children. That's what makes them pedophiles. Their sexual attraction is not based on gender, but on age.
I'd also like to know how the sampling of homosexuals was chosen for the underage percentage, and whether a comparable sampling of heterosexuals was asked the same question as a control.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, I was trying to say exactly that. These statistics don't appear to be as bogus as ones I've seen in the past. I'm trying to take them more seriously as a result, despite the ownership of the website where they were posted and the religous affilliations of the organization.
The Canadian statistics in particular, do say that 30% of pedophiles admit to adult gay contact, but that leaves 70% that aren't. I suspect the Canadian statistics are less biased since this isn't nearly as much of a hotbed issue in Canada. I would have liked to look up the Canadian study to see if it was online but I don't think I have enough info to do so without acessing the article, which I can't from work due to the subject matter.
posted
"I think we can reasonably say that there are a number of homosexuals who got that way because they were molested. But no heterosexual got that way because they were molested."
Out of interest, why can we reasonably assume either of these two statements?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami, you erroneously submit that since heterosexual people can be sexually violent and abusive this is indicative of the heterosexuality. This ignores the fact that sexual abusers are statistally more likely to be homosexual.
A study on the sexuality of rapists might be interesting.
You have not addressed the facts, you have simply said they prove nothing about the nature of homosexuality. I say that you are wrong. The facts indicate something, and that something is not pleasant.
Now, I have high cholesterol due to genetic factors. I can control it with diet, right now. But statistically, I am more likely to die of a heart attack and stroke than the normal person. This, despite the fact that these genetic factors were apparent in my grandmother who showed no signs of heart disease despite repeated tests (she died of parkinsons) and a mother who also shows no signs of heart disease. When I am about forty and this 'problem' requires drugs to keep under control, I will need to tie my tubes so that I cannot get pregnant at all and will face a risk to my liver. This, because of statistics.
There is the occasional child who dies as a result of a reaction to a vaccination. This is tragic and I grieve with the parent, but I still say that every child should be immunized. This is because far more children would die of the diseases they are being immunized against than are damaged by the vaccines.
We all know that statistics cannot describe individuals. And it is true many individuals might suffer because they do not conform to those statistics.
But they do describe societies. We must protect our societies to protect the individuals within it. It is a cyclical relationship. When we enact policies that give benifits to minorities despite statistics that say it will damage more people than it helps, then we've damaged society. This is not to say that the individuals within those societies are less deserving of benefits.
It is the hardest, most terrible thing when we must apply rules that will make life more difficult for some in order to protect others. But we do have to make those choices. And we better have a lot more than emotional ranting and raving before we come to a consensus.
Tom:
People are heterosexual by default. Even studies that showed some genetic tendancy only show a disposition towards homosexuality, not an absolute fate. Therefore, we know there is a lot in the environment that affects the person being homosexual or not. That environment may very well have included molestation. There are homosexuals who gained an attraction to the same gender due to sexual molestation they experienced as a child or teenager. These people, had they not been molested, would have been more likely to grow up heterosexual.
posted
Amka, the one stat that says 1/3 of molesters are homosexual, I wonder what defines homosexual in this case? Many children are molested by people that otherwise identify with heterosexuality. Did they just assume that if the molestor and the victim were the same gender, the molester was homosexual?
I'm not saying your stats are wrong, but what you have quoted allows for some ambiguity.
posted
Every human being is female by default (Though in the case of XY chromosome people, they would be barren). Saying something is default isn't the most useful statement in the world.
In terms of defining someone as a pedophile, post-pubescent, 17-year-old boys cannot be considered children. Legally, yes. But not the sexuality is not same as being attracted to pre-pubescent 10-year-olds.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
They might identify with heterosexuality, but the fact is they are acting on homosexual urges and therefore can be defined at the very least as bisexual.
A lot of heterosexual molestation occurs. I'm not denying that. In fact, I won't even deny that most molestation is heterosexual. That is found mostly in families, and within that, mostly by non-biological parents. In fact, adoption itself is a higher risk situation with regards to sexual abuse. Non-familial molestation far more likely to be homosexual.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, this is true to a point, but what do we call it when the adult male is 40 and is seducing the 16 yr old male and only wants those younger ones?
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:This ignores the fact that sexual abusers are statistally more likely to be homosexual.
I don't know if this is true. I mean, I'm under the impression that more women are sexually abused than men are. I'm also under the impression that most women who are sexually abused are abused by men. Maybe it's because an overwhelming percentage date-rapes, roofies, "no" means "no," stories I hear are about men accosting women. ________________________________________________
Even if homosexuals comprise a 30 percent of the sexual predators, more than double are heterosexual, and I'm a little suspicious of the absence of bisexuality in that survey. As Bok mentioned above, how do they define homosexuality and heterosexuality if they don't include bisexuality?
quote: A study of Canadian pedophiles has shown that 30 percent of those studied admitted to having engaged in homosexual acts as adults, and 91 percent of the molesters of non-familial boys admitted to no lifetime sexual contact other than homosexual.
Having been engaged in homosexual acts doesn't rule out that they were engaged in heterosexual acts as well. I think that encompasses the bisexuality.
I fail to see how that impacts the argument. Are you saying that in my world, bisexuals are better because at least they have some attraction for the opposite sex?
I think you're making an absolute statement here in a situation that's not actually backed by evidence.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
You know that the survival of the species depends on the fact that humans are, by default, attracted to the opposite sex. When 97% of all people are heterosexual, then I think that is statisically significant enough to say that humans are, unless there is a deviation from normal development, heterosexual.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, not quite. It's enough to say that 97% of humans are heterosexual -- but, since there's no way of knowing how much of a factor environment plays in the development of the remaining 3% (or in the 97% majority, for that matter), you have to stop there.
quote:A study of Canadian pedophiles has shown that 30 percent of those studied admitted to having engaged in homosexual acts as adults, and 91 percent of the molesters of non-familial boys admitted to no lifetime sexual contact other than homosexual.
I agree that non-familial boys are in greater danger from homosexual men than by heterosexual men. Just as non-familial girls are in greater danger from heterosexual men than they are from heterosexual females. And furthermore, heterosexual men are attacking girls left and right. _____________
I just don't agree that, "engaged in homosexual acts as an adult" makes you a homosexual. And the Canadian study doesn't list the parameters on the control group. We don't know how many of the non-pedophiles engaged in homosexual acts as an adult, and furthermore, who in this control group is more likely to lie. _______________
I'm also curious about the effects of repression, but that's fodder for another thread.
posted
Amka, but what if that 91% is 20 people, and thus a minute percentage of even the gay community? And how much of a percentage is non-familial boy molestation compared to all boys molestation?
Without this sort of widening of scope, it's like saying uncircumcised boys have twice the chance of getting a urinary infection before the age of two than circumcised (therefore all boys should be circumcised), but ignoring/omitting/not further publishing the fact that the rate is so low in circumcised boys (a percent, tops, I believe), that even the percentage of afflicted uncircumcised boys vs. uncircumcised boys not afflicted is really tiny (no more than 2%). That stuff allows a greater context to be drawn to understand how big of a problem it is.
Is it a problem? Yes. Are there bigger issues though, that are largely the domain of heterosexuals? Yes. So what sort of conclusions can be drawn from THAT?
I think the conclusion should be drawn that sexual predators of all types ought to be found and appropriately punished. Not that gays, oght not to be allowed to gain LEGAL privileges/protections for maintaining long-term, monogamous relationships.
posted
I just don't like the implied cause-and-effect.
It may be that most child molesters are attracted to children of their own gender. Dunno. I still don't see where that follows that homosexuals are automatically suspect. What percentage of child molesters are white? Christian? Parents? Single? Married? Divorced? Middle-aged? Physically/mentally challenged?
Finding what appears to be a pattern and not following up on all the potential connections is sloppy science.
A study was once done on college students and smoking, and a correlation was found between smokers and poor performance. The exact same figures derived could be used to "prove" that a) smoking made you stupid, b) stupid people were more likely to smoke, or c) they were both symptoms of a larger problem.
Tell me, who would you be more likely to hire as a teacher? A homosexual, or a heterosexual dominatrix? Of course you probably wouldn't know about the second one, since that sort of thing isn't asked during the interview...
[ March 04, 2004, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, that these studies are published and some people believe they are fact, without exploring the background and nuances, because they resonate with their own deeply held beliefs. We can pick apart the pro-gay statistics just as much and it has been done here on hatrack before both ways.
How does one combat all the propaganda out there from both sides and actually find true facts?
And people are gullible. I told a coworker today that the forward they got of the iceberg that you can see both top and bottom of simultaneously that was taken by a Norwegian tanker captain was two different pictures photoshopped together, and the person absolutely refused to believe me. I can't get to SNOPES on my work server because it is blocked for some unfathomable reason.
posted
I lurk. I work 46 hours a week at a non-computer job, and I still write fiction. That doesn't leave a lot of time to play on hatrack.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say that it is difficult to follow up on because one can't get funding for such studies.
So now that we've picked apart every study that even resembles being scientific, where does that leave us?
Ignorant.
And people want to act on that ignorance before we can get some valid data.
These are my primary, non-religious arguments:
1. That it appears that harmful behavior such as pedophilia is somehow linked to homosexual behavior, whether one defines themself as homosexual or not. It appears that homosexuality is linked to a risk of mental instability. As such, we need to be careful about the encouragement of such behavior. More follow up study is required.
2. That there is an agenda on the part of the homosexual community to teach young children that their lifestyle is normal and that no harm can come of it, against the wishes of these childrens' parents. I want to ask you folks honestly: how many of you are secretly thinking that is a good thing? If you can't shove your morality down my throat, then you'll just indocrinate my children instead.
3. That legalizing gay marriage will further degrade the value society has for the traditional family, and this general vibe projected in media and at educational institutions will lead to fewer intact families. This will be harmful for the society.
quote:2. That there is an agenda on the part of the homosexual community to teach young children that their lifestyle is normal and that no harm can come of it, against the wishes of these childrens' parents. I want to ask you folks honestly: how many of you are secretly thinking that is a good thing? If you can't shove your morality down my throat, then you'll just indocrinate my children instead.
There is as much of a spectrum among gay political beliefs as there is among straight political beliefs. I've had a couple very good friends who were log cabin republicans.
I think you are mistaking a particular fringe of a particular group for representing the entire group.
There are probably an equal number of people who think creationists are trying to impose their beliefs by legislating teaching them into public school classrooms.
quote: 3. That legalizing gay marriage will further degrade the value society has for the traditional family, and this general vibe projected in media and at educational institutions will lead to fewer intact families. This will be harmful for the society.
I think gay marriage legalisation is irrelevant to this. They are such a small portion of the population as you point it out, they really can't swing things one way or the other in terms of the greater familial norms. If you want intact families, make premarital counseling and marital counsling in general mandatory before a divorce, except in abuse cases.
AJ
Oh yes and pre-marital financial planning too. Most divorces are over money. I know I've seen the stats but don't have them at the tips of my fingers.
posted
Republican and Democrat have nothing to do with the fact that they want a minority protection status that would require the government to teach kids in schools that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for the already shaky nature of marriage, no one is saying that homosexual marriage would be the worst thing to happen to marriage. Simply that it is yet one more harmful thing.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the government should be teaching anything on homosexuality one way or the other, especially at the lower levels! The only thing that should be said, is that in the eyes of the law all persons are equal. When sex ed comes around, it should be mentioned as a statistical percentage of the population. Safe sex and sexual disease prevention is pretty straight forward regardless of sexual orientation.
posted
read the article. The question is, how is this cultural dissolution of marriage actually affecting crime rates? Are they skyrocketing? Are children actually suffering? Are the poverty rates increasing? Is the population some how more unhappy now than when they were marrying? Will the fact that so much of the population isn't marrying change the statistics (which I believe are US based) about married people living longer. And in a socalized government system even minimally socialized like here in the U.S. do we actually care that there is a couple year age difference in the death ages in married and unmarried people because people are living so much longer to begin with?
So why should we care anyway? If in the nordic system single mothers aren't more likely to be in poverty, then it isn't a big deal.
That article left me with a whole lot of questions and not a lot of answers.
AJ
(edit: I just discovered I'd only read the first page... maybe I'll have answers after the second page)
posted
As for the already shaky nature of marriage, no one is saying that homosexual marriage would be the worst thing to happen to marriage. Simply that it is yet one more harmful thing.
I'm sorry, I can't see it. The more people who honestly want to commit to each other, the better for society. This seems so self-evident to me I trip over myself trying to explain it.
Now, homosexuals (or heterosexuals, for that matter) who marry only for the publicity, I have no time for.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Two things prompted the Swedes to take this extra step--the welfare state and cultural attitudes. No Western economy has a higher percentage of public employees, public expenditures--or higher tax rates--than Sweden. The massive Swedish welfare state has largely displaced the family as provider. By guaranteeing jobs and income to every citizen (even children), the welfare state renders each individual independent. It's easier to divorce your spouse when the state will support you instead.
The taxes necessary to support the welfare state have had an enormous impact on the family. With taxes so high, women must work. This reduces the time available for child rearing, thus encouraging the expansion of a day-care system that takes a large part in raising nearly all Swedish children over age one. Here is at least a partial realization of Simone de Beauvoir's dream of an enforced androgyny that pushes women from the home by turning children over to the state.
and
quote: That study found that regardless of income or social status, parental breakup had negative effects on children's mental health. Boys living with single, separated, or divorced mothers had particularly high rates of impairment in adolescence. An important 2003 study by Gunilla Ringbäck Weitoft, et al. found that children of single parents in Sweden have more than double the rates of mortality, severe morbidity, and injury of children in two parent households. This held true after controlling for a wide range of demographic and socioeconomic circumstances.
This will have a neutral affect on society? Are you sure you really read the entire article?
Actually, I just realized something: this will force me to work to help support the family and force me to put my children in daycare or reduce my cost of living, so people can experience more individualism and less dependence on family. So it is yet another way that the morally liberal mindset will be shoved down my throat.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm leaving work, but these quotes from the article are definitely food for thought.
quote: Despite the reluctance of Scandinavian social scientists to study the consequences of family dissolution for children, we do have an excellent study that followed the life experiences of all children born in Stockholm in 1953. (Not coincidentally, the research was conducted by a British scholar, Duncan W.G. Timms.) That study found that regardless of income or social status, parental breakup had negative effects on children's mental health. Boys living with single, separated, or divorced mothers had particularly high rates of impairment in adolescence. An important 2003 study by Gunilla Ringbäck Weitoft, et al. found that children of single parents in Sweden have more than double the rates of mortality, severe morbidity, and injury of children in two parent households. This held true after controlling for a wide range of demographic and socioeconomic circumstances.
My comment on this, is that they have to go back to 1953 to coroberate the 2003 study. And the problem is single parenting here, not gay marriage. Though their documentation of the devaluing of marriage overall is interesting. But I think divorce is what has us where we are to day. Their correlations between gay marriage and the decline in marrage are a completely circular argument which they admit.
quote: This suggests that gay marriage is both an effect and a cause of the increasing separation between marriage and parenthood. As rising out-of-wedlock birthrates disassociate heterosexual marriage from parenting, gay marriage becomes conceivable. If marriage is only about a relationship between two people, and is not intrinsically connected to parenthood, why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to marry? It follows that once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, that change cannot help but lock in and reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes gay marriage conceivable to begin with.
quote: AMERICANS take it for granted that, despite its recent troubles, marriage will always exist. This is a mistake. Marriage is disappearing in Scandinavia, and the forces undermining it there are active throughout the West. Perhaps the most disturbing sign for the future is the collapse of the Scandinavian tendency to marry after the second child. At the start of the nineties, 60 percent of unmarried Norwegian parents who lived together had only one child. By 2001, 56 percent of unmarried, cohabiting parents in Norway had two or more children. This suggests that someday, Scandinavian parents might simply stop getting married altogether, no matter how many children they have.
quote: Kiernan maintains that as societies progressively detach marriage from parenthood, stage reversal is impossible. That makes sense. The association between marriage and parenthood is partly a mystique. Disenchanted mystiques cannot be restored on demand.
Here they admit it is a mystique. What is wrong with disenchantment. That is what the Protestant reformation was founded on -de-mystifying the Gospel. You could probably trace it all the way back to that and start applying the blame from there if you wanted.
You can also draw a correlation if you feel like between suffrage for women in the US and the national debt. Doesn't mean any of the above is actually truly cause and effect.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(I'm not being snarky when I say this. I'm genuinely curious about your opinion.)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
The problem is that you can't say with complete certainty that they are incorrect, either. So, for the sake of discussion, I am treating her stats as correct.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
