The Morality of Liberals and Conservatives
You might find this lecture interesting. Jonathan Haidt, associate professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, has been studying the psychology
of morality. At a recent New Yorker conference, he presented a summary of his findings on the differences in morality between conservatives and liberals. The video of his talk is online HERE.
In general, he describes liberals as having a kind of morality based on two foundations:
He notes that this is a sufficient and reasonable moral basis for a diverse society, where you have to accept the differences between people. He also points out how the Blue counties are all either along the coasts and along the Mississippi River -- areas with shipping, with a lot of trade and a lot of different kinds of people.
Conservative morality includes those two foundations, he said, but also includes principles of:
The five-foundation system of morality has been the prevalent one everywhere in the world where societies have remained distinct from one another and where it was possible to live your whole life within your in-group, he said. Note that until modern times, this was just about everywhere.
Of course he elaborates more in this presentation, as he makes the point that by understanding these differences in the foundations of morality, liberals can understand why conservatives feel the way they do.
It all sounds fine, that conservative people are just looking out for threats to their loved ones, trying to prevent disruption, hoping to preserve cultural values that have sustained people for a long time. I can see that.
But something about it started to bother me a little bit. Because I grew up in a Red State, in Barry Goldwater's own state of Arizona. And I never had any trouble with conservative people. I mean, I wasn't one of them, but they were my friends and neighbors, we just had a different way of looking at things. In November we'd go to the polls and vote and they'd win. No problem.
Haidt refers to the "culture wars" a couple of times in this talk, and I think I see what the problem is.
See, he's talking about conservative people, in the traditional sense. There has always been debate in the US about ... well, about everything ... and it's always had two sides to it, and one side gets called "liberal" and the other side gets called "conservative." Been that way for my whole life, at least.
But the culture wars, that's not just a new label for an old dialectical process. The culture wars are a recent phenomenon. And the problem isn't that "conservatives" want to protect their families from threats and maintain traditional values, the problem is that they have moved so far to the right that they have left real conservatives like Barry Goldwater looking like liberals. The problem is that the "conservatives" are convinced that their mission (whatever it is) is so important that they are entitled to lie, accuse, cheat, to declare wars and reinterpret the Constitution in any way they can get away with.
I don't see that in this "five-foundation" moral system. Where does it say it's OK to lie? Liberals and real conservatives reject that sort of thing equally, though it has become status quo among our political leadership and in the Family Blah Blah organizations and groups like the CRC that are trying to push their narrow value system on the rest of us. We're only just starting to see the indictments and convictions roll in at the highest levels of the federal govenrment. The standard behavior of our government officials has not just been unethical, it's criminal.
Hey, d'ya hear the guy on the news the other days, saying he didn't think it was right to send Scooter Libby to jail without DeLay?
The kind of Assault on Reason we have witnessed in recent years is not an ongoing debate between honest liberals and honest conservatives who just see the world with different priorities. The "culture wars" reflect an attempt by radical elements to remake the United States in their image, removing elementary Constitutional rights and institutionalizing bigotry and belligerence, to create a fundamentally different America based on authoritarianism and rejecting personal liberty.
This guy is correct in general, in describing, say, the difference between City Mice and Country Mice, between liberals and conservatives in ordinary times, but he isn't even in the ball park when it comes to understanding how things have gotten the way they are, where behavior that is outside the bounds of any system of morality has become status quo.
of morality. At a recent New Yorker conference, he presented a summary of his findings on the differences in morality between conservatives and liberals. The video of his talk is online HERE.
In general, he describes liberals as having a kind of morality based on two foundations:
- do no harm and
- be fair (don't cheat people)
He notes that this is a sufficient and reasonable moral basis for a diverse society, where you have to accept the differences between people. He also points out how the Blue counties are all either along the coasts and along the Mississippi River -- areas with shipping, with a lot of trade and a lot of different kinds of people.
Conservative morality includes those two foundations, he said, but also includes principles of:
- in-group loyalty
- respect for authority, and
- purity
The five-foundation system of morality has been the prevalent one everywhere in the world where societies have remained distinct from one another and where it was possible to live your whole life within your in-group, he said. Note that until modern times, this was just about everywhere.
Of course he elaborates more in this presentation, as he makes the point that by understanding these differences in the foundations of morality, liberals can understand why conservatives feel the way they do.
It all sounds fine, that conservative people are just looking out for threats to their loved ones, trying to prevent disruption, hoping to preserve cultural values that have sustained people for a long time. I can see that.
But something about it started to bother me a little bit. Because I grew up in a Red State, in Barry Goldwater's own state of Arizona. And I never had any trouble with conservative people. I mean, I wasn't one of them, but they were my friends and neighbors, we just had a different way of looking at things. In November we'd go to the polls and vote and they'd win. No problem.
Haidt refers to the "culture wars" a couple of times in this talk, and I think I see what the problem is.
See, he's talking about conservative people, in the traditional sense. There has always been debate in the US about ... well, about everything ... and it's always had two sides to it, and one side gets called "liberal" and the other side gets called "conservative." Been that way for my whole life, at least.
But the culture wars, that's not just a new label for an old dialectical process. The culture wars are a recent phenomenon. And the problem isn't that "conservatives" want to protect their families from threats and maintain traditional values, the problem is that they have moved so far to the right that they have left real conservatives like Barry Goldwater looking like liberals. The problem is that the "conservatives" are convinced that their mission (whatever it is) is so important that they are entitled to lie, accuse, cheat, to declare wars and reinterpret the Constitution in any way they can get away with.
I don't see that in this "five-foundation" moral system. Where does it say it's OK to lie? Liberals and real conservatives reject that sort of thing equally, though it has become status quo among our political leadership and in the Family Blah Blah organizations and groups like the CRC that are trying to push their narrow value system on the rest of us. We're only just starting to see the indictments and convictions roll in at the highest levels of the federal govenrment. The standard behavior of our government officials has not just been unethical, it's criminal.
Hey, d'ya hear the guy on the news the other days, saying he didn't think it was right to send Scooter Libby to jail without DeLay?
The kind of Assault on Reason we have witnessed in recent years is not an ongoing debate between honest liberals and honest conservatives who just see the world with different priorities. The "culture wars" reflect an attempt by radical elements to remake the United States in their image, removing elementary Constitutional rights and institutionalizing bigotry and belligerence, to create a fundamentally different America based on authoritarianism and rejecting personal liberty.
This guy is correct in general, in describing, say, the difference between City Mice and Country Mice, between liberals and conservatives in ordinary times, but he isn't even in the ball park when it comes to understanding how things have gotten the way they are, where behavior that is outside the bounds of any system of morality has become status quo.
posted by JimK at 12:01 PM
127 Comments:
What sticks out at me is that two of the foundations for conservative "morality" are in-group loyalty and "purity". Essentially they are overlapping foundations as the "purity" of the group is largely determined by the in-group loyalty.
The difference between conservative and liberal morality is that the conservative morality is suited for our ancient ancestral past and the liberal morality is suited for our modern present and future. Back in cave-man times it made sense to have strong in-group loyalty as humans were divided into seperate often warring groups and the survival of one was often at the expense of the other. Nowadays this works against us as we are a global society and dividing ourselves into warring factions is counterproductive particularly given modern weapons.
Liberals see their in-group as all of society and are concerned for the well being of us all, not just the "us" in "us versus them". This is what we need to overcome the conflicts between religious, ethnic groups, and nations. We've outgrown the need for loyal in-groups and we need to make the whole planet our in-group to survive and prosper.
An excellent book that makes this point extremely well is Carl Sagan's "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors". It notes how in-group loyalty and inter-group fighting is deeply ingrained in our evolutionary past and how our evolution hasn't kept up with social needs in a modern society. It truly is the bible for recognizing and overcoming the problems in modern society due to an evolutionary makeup that no longer suits our needs.
Small minded in-group loyalty is responsible for the conflicts we see in the world today. This loyalty may make people more comfortable within their isolated group but results in the conflicts between groups we see all over the planet today. In-group loyalty may have been productive in the ancient past when there was sufficient space such that groups needn't overlap or encounter other groups much, but in a shrinking world we can't afford to differentiate ourselves like this and keep fighting evertime we inevitably and frequently encounter other differentiated groups. We need a global morality to survive and prosper, the artificial boundaries of nation, ethnicity, and religion must be put aside, we must overcome our cave-man mentality that leads us to these things.
Randi's point is made repeatedly in Thomas Friedman's chillingly prophetic book, The Lexis and the Olive Tree. Written the year before 9/11, he lays out these two approaches clearly -- and notes the dangers posed by "superempowered individuals" -- he specifically names Bin Laden -- who have access to great wealth, but also are obsessed by "in-group loyalty" to the point where those not in the in-group are deemed to be an undifferentated enemy.
"We need a global morality." But assuming that's true, why would you imagine that this "global morality" would reflect the perspective of American cultural leftists, since probably 75-80% of the world's population is in basic disagreement with it? That is to say, the vast bulk of the people on the globe are NOT liberals, they are (in your terminology) "cavemen" or at least they are much closer to caveman-ism than to American cultural leftism.
Check out the reaction in non-American branches of Christian churches to the liberal positions of their American counterparts for one good case in point--American Anglicans think homosexual bishops are A-OK, but the vast majority of the Anglican church in the non-Western world disagrees.
So why do you think "global morality" will reflect YOUR morality and not that of the conservatives? Assuming, that is, that it is actually constructed by the global citizenry and not an elite of Western intellectuals?
Cult, it's a little weird the way you put stuff in quotes and attribute it to me, when I didn't say it. I've got nothing against the conservative "five-foundation" morality, except that it doesn't work if you're in a city surrounded by all kinds of people. In that case, there's no way to avoid the fact that your own group's norms are just one of many. That's why the blue states are near the ports.
In fact, I thought I was pretty clear about that in this post. It's not conservatism that I have a beef with, it's the self-serving fake-morality that today calls itself conservatism.
JimK
I didn't attribute anything to you. YOur name isn't even in my post. I was responding to Randi Schimnosky's comment, as you might have noted that's where the stuff on "global morality" shows up.
As to what does or does not "work" as a moral perspective in a city, do you think there aren't any conservatives in the coastal parts of the country? Just because those states tend to lean left is no indication that conservative morality "doesn't work" there--what would that even MEAN, that it "doesn't work"?
SImply living in an urban environment doesn't mean one has to become a cultural relativist.
why would you imagine that this "global morality" would reflect the perspective of American cultural leftists, since probably 75-80% of the world's population is in basic disagreement with it?
I don't know, Culturologist. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that people from around the world seek to immigrate to the US with it's "cultural leftists" more than any other place on Earth. People are not waiting for years or illegally crossing borders to live anywhere else in numbers like they want in here.
Many people around the world want to come here for some of the same reasons early colonists did - to escape the tyranny of mandatory in-group loyalty and to attain American freedoms.
Ah, so you think that everyone who comes to the US from elsewhere is a cultural relativist, then? Well, the demographic data sure don't indicate that--the vast bulk of the immigration to this country comes from Latin America and Asia, and specifically from countries that are much more 'caveman' (Schimnosky's term) than 'enlightened' in cultural terms. Talk with your average Latino immigrant about same sex marriage sometime and see what response you get. They are generally not enthusiastic about the kinds of things going on in Massachusetts.
And you think "early colonists" were cultural leftists??? Wow, ever heard of Puritanism?
You haven't thought very hard about this, have you, 'O'Really'?
One should also note that, even if every immigrant to the US *were* morally liberal (again, this notion is pretty patently false--the central factor that draws most immigrants here is *work*, not the existence of lots of strip clubs and same sex marriage in Massachusetts), per O'Really's presumption, this doesn't answer my question.
Only a small minority of the world's population desires to emigrate to the US or to the West generally--most of those people prefer staying right where they are.
It is a particularly virulent kind of ethnocentrism to imagine that everyone in a traditional culture really hates it there and desires only to come to the land of porn, the hook up culture, and endless Gay Pride parades. That is, the kind of 'cultural liberalism' that believes that everyone really wants to be LIKE US is actually not so culturally liberal after all, is it?
I just watched the Haidt video. Haidt is exactly right--Atom-World vs. Lattice-World.
As a sociologist, it's easy to see that Atom-World is completely contrary to reality--human beings are NOT isolated individuals, but rather exist ONLY as members of groups and institutions that provide them with values and ways of seeing and understanding the world. Haidt even implicitly notes that this is true of the Atom-World leftists too, although their worldview precludes them noticing it.
The one point Haidt doesn't see in enough nuance is that the Lattice-World morality reliance on tradition does not necessarily imply religious belief and invocations of God. But most of what he says is right.
What he ought to end the talk with is the advice to Atom-Worlders that it is highly unlikely that they will ever eliminate Lattice-World morality, precisely because the latter view of morality is richer and more nuanced (Haidt implies this himself) than Atom-World morality. After all, Lattice-World morality INCLUDES the two elements of Atom -World morality and ADDS three more elements. By this measure, Atom-World morality is more simple-minded--ironic given the fact that so many Atom-worlders seem to get so much satisfaction out of constantly talking about how much smarter they are than the Lattice-Worlders!
My sense is that Atom-Worlders will make no real inroads into political power and dominance in American society until they enrich their own vision of morality. Such a vision used to exist on the left--New Deal Democrats were VERY different creatures than the current batch of identity-centered, relativist and atomistic Democrats. The problem on the left is that the radically individualist framework won over the party of the left, and so many people who disagree with elements of the contemporary Republican right's worldview (e.g., the encroachment of religion into the state, the worship of radical free market individualism and desire to destroy the welfare state), yet who cannot follow the atomistic left in endorsing every little thing some tiny group wants to do as a 'right,' find themselves without a party.
Ah, so you think that everyone who comes to the US from elsewhere is a cultural relativist, then?...you think "early colonists" were cultural leftists???
Now who's attributing words to others' who didn't utter them? I never said any of that. You did.
Many immigrants support many of freedoms America's liberal culture provides. Marriage equality/civil unions are only offered in a few states. What makes you think those are the ONLY bits of our liberal culture that attracts immigrants?
As for your 12:46 PM comment, I gotta say you sound more like a Cultproctologist than a Culturologist.
Have you seen any data on immigrant cultural positions? That is a MORE conservative population than the already present American population--they are more religious, more family-centered, and certainly more focused on that horrible 'in-group loyalty' than the Atom-World folks Haidt is talking about.
All the evidence indicates that they come here by and large because they CAN MAKE MORE MONEY here than they can in their home countries. If you knew anything about the immigration literature, that would be obvious to you.
Your idea that they come here for 'American cultural freedoms' isn't backed up by any facts. Or at least you haven't mobilized any here.
The fact that you post here anonymously (and with a sad attempt at a joke concerning my last name) is telling--the overwhelming majority of the anonymous posters I have encountered in most places don't know what they are talking about, and they know it, so they prefer to avoid having others know precisely where to attribute their faulty ideas.
Why are you afraid to reveal who you are?
Please forgive the delay. Some of us work for a living.
Immigrants come here for many reasons; more money is one of them and I'll even give you that it might be the most common reason. However, it is far from the only reason people want to come here. Better health care, job security provided by unions, religious freedom, love, food and water safety, fact-based education are but a few of the other reasons they come. As I said before, you don't see nearly as many people sneaking across borders or waiting years to immigrate legally into other contries as you do here.
ever heard of Puritanism?
Yeah. Have you ever heard of the Unitarians?
attempt at a joke concerning my last name
Your last name is urologist?????
Why are you afraid to reveal who you are?
You ass-u-me waaaaaay too much. I'm not afraid, I just don't care to identify myself. It's still a (mostly) free country.
Thanks for making it clear that time spent talking to you is wasted time.
Culturologist said ""We need a global morality." But assuming that's true, why would you imagine that this "global morality" would reflect the perspective of American cultural leftists, since probably 75-80% of the world's population is in basic disagreement with it?".
I never said it would reflect the american "cultural leftists"' perspective. What I'm saying is that one of the pillers of conservatism, "in group loyalty" and the overlapping piller of "purity" is dangerous and destructive in a globalized society and we see this everywhere in the global conflicts over religion and ethnicity.
By definition a global morality is one that does away with the destructiveness of in-group loyalty and makes the "in-group" the entire planet. Participating in a global government would force people to think beyond artificial borders and to think of their fellow human's needs and desires just as national governments force some consideration of all peoples within a nation.
A global morality isn't something that's going to happen automatically, it'll take work and time to bring it about. Ultimately everyone is better off when we cooperate and its eventually in everyone's best interest to have consideration for their global neighbours. People can be convinced of this bit by bit. Its easy to see how everyone would be better off if the money spent on armies and defense could go to feeding the poor, health care, and technological development. There's a huge opportunity cost in being enemies divided by nationality, religion, and ethnicity.
Give individuals a say in global affairs and they'll start to think of their group as all of society. Teach morality in school, teach that we are global citizens. The more educated people are the more consideration they tend to have for their fellow citizen.
Culturologist said "it's easy to see that Atom-World is completely contrary to reality--human beings are NOT isolated individuals, but rather exist ONLY as members of groups and institutions that provide them with values and ways of seeing and understanding the world".
Uhh, Culturologist, if anyone's view is contrary to reality its your's. What you're saying is nonsense. People exist both as members of groups and institutions AND as individuals. Without individuals there is no group or institution and the idea that we exist ONLY as members is preposterous. People don't cease to be when they are not interacting with others, they continue to exist as individuals.
Our values and ways of seeing and understanding the world come from within us as much as from others. Certain values are inherent in people and that's why core values tend to arise independent of culture and social grouping. Its inherent in people to understand that that which I want, value, and desire there is a good chance that someone else will feel the same way. Its inherent in people to understand that what causes me pain will cause someone else pain and if I desire to avoid pain so will others. Its inherent in people to understand that since they need food, shelter, and water, that others will have the same needs. Its inherent in people to understand that just as there are things that bring me pleasure others will have things that bring them pleasure. Because we inherently know who we are, our needs, desires, and dislikes we have a reasonably good idea what everyone is like.
"What I'm saying is that one of the pillers of conservatism, "in group loyalty" and the overlapping piller of "purity" is dangerous and destructive in a globalized society and we see this everywhere in the global conflicts over religion and ethnicity."
And what of the destructiveness of the radical individualism that is at the heart of the Atom-WOrld morality?
"By definition a global morality is one that does away with the destructiveness of in-group loyalty and makes the "in-group" the entire planet."
Good luck with that.
"A global morality isn't something that's going to happen automatically, it'll take work and time to bring it about."
You mean it'll take plenty of reeducation efforts as Western elites convince everyone else in the world that they've got it wrong and need to see the world the way the Western elites do. People have a strange desire to hang on to their culture, largely because they recognize that is a huge part of what makes them what they are.
"The more educated people are the more consideration they tend to have for their fellow citizen. "
When the educational system takes it as given that 'global morality' is superior, this might perhaps be the case. But the most educated people in many societies are in fact the most nationalist, precisely because they have learned the most about their nation's history and culture from their country's educational system.
But they're just cavemen, right?
"People don't cease to be when they are not interacting with others, they continue to exist as individuals."
You would do well to study some social theory. Of course people don't cease to exist when they are alone--but they ALWAYS carry society around inside them, unless they are feral children. This is Social Science 101.
"Our values and ways of seeing and understanding the world come from within us as much as from others. "
Oh, do tell. Which values do you mean? Which ways of seeing the world? And tell me from precisely WHERE they come from if not from culture?
Everything you do and think is cultural--the very language in WHICH you think is a result of the culture into which you were born.
The very idea of the 'individual' upon which Atom-Worlders stake so much is cultural and is in fact not found in all societies. There is a large literature on the emergence of the notion of the 'individual' in the West as well.
Much of what you say here sounds like the stuff I hear every term from first year undergraduates who are convinced (by their immersion in the radically individualist American *culture*) that they are REALLY INDIVIDUAL. Then they are forced to read and think a little about that notion and most of them figure out pretty quickly how simplistic that way of thinking is.
Andrea -not anon
Hey, culture- don't you have your own blog where you can answer yourself?
Yeah, I do have a blog of my own, Andrea Anon, but from time to time I look around at what others say and comment on that too. You might try it sometime, maybe you'd learn something.
Or maybe not.
Culturologist said "And what of the destructiveness of the radical individualism that is at the heart of the Atom-WOrld morality?".
You obviously need to have another look at the video and to think about it this time. The morality of a liberal is based on "is anyone getting hurt" and fairness. These moral concepts preclude hurting others because we recognize them as individuals just as we are. The conservative "morality" (as we've seen played out with sickening repitition in the conflicts around the planet) does not preclude hurting others, in fact it encourages this because "ingroup loyalty" is an "us versus them" philosophy that encourages seeing others as enemies to be fought with.
I said ""By definition a global morality is one that does away with the destructiveness of in-group loyalty and makes the "in-group" the entire planet."
Cultureologist said "Good luck with that.".
Yes, a monumental problem I agree. But out of curiousity, don't you agree that the planet would be better off if everyone saw everyone else as part of their group and aimed to maximize the benefits and minimize the problems for all in an equal fashion? Do you really think in-group loyalty is a good thing given the conflicts this leads to between groups and the denial of cooperation and mutual goal attainment that might otherwise exist?
Culturologist said "When the educational system takes it as given that 'global morality' is superior, this might perhaps be the case. But the most educated people in many societies are in fact the most nationalist, precisely because they have learned the most about their nation's history and culture from their country's educational system.".
Its a given that global cooperation is superior to fighting between groups based on religion, culture, ethnicity, and so on. Its a given that an opportunity cost is the huge sums and efforts spent on fighting and defending ourselves from each other and that these resources could be better spent advancing everyone's lot in life. That's something everyone should be able to agree should be taught in school to everyone.
Culturologist said "You would do well to study some social theory. Of course people don't cease to exist when they are alone--but they ALWAYS carry society around inside them, unless they are feral children. This is Social Science 101.".
Society is made up of individuals, without individuals there is no society - that's the facts of life 101. Society is there to serve individuals, not the other way around, if society doesn't serve individuals then it serves no purpose whatsoever. People don't build houses for the sake of the houses, they do it for the sake of themselves.
Culturologist said "Oh, do tell. Which values do you mean? Which ways of seeing the world? And tell me from precisely WHERE they come from if not from culture?"
The value of do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you cut yourself, you feel pain and you know that cutting others is wrong because they feel pain as well. If you lay down on a soft bed to sleep you know that feels better than sleeping on rocks and you know others would similarly prefer a soft bed to rocks. The individual experiences one has as a human are automatically transferable to other humans, we know instinctively that some of what we feel others likely feel
as well.
Culturologist said "Everything you do and think is cultural--the very language in WHICH you think is a result of the culture into which you were born.".
Nonsense, our basic needs as humans have nothing to do with culture, they're inherent in being human. We don't have to learn from the culture that it feels good to eat when we're hungry, drink when we're thirsty, sleep when we feel tired. We don't learn our sex drives from the culture, it appears unbidden to the individual. We don't (generally) learn to masturbate from others, we discover it on our own. We don't learn it hurts to damage our bodies from others, we learn that on our own. And the list goes on...
Culturologist said "The very idea of the 'individual' upon which Atom-Worlders stake so much is cultural and is in fact not found in all societies. There is a large literature on the emergence of the notion of the 'individual' in the West as well.".
Nonsesene. The fact of our being physically and mentally seperate from others makes individuality inherent in all people and all cultures. No one exists thinking they can't act independently from other people, we learn that from the time we are babies when we first crap or whiz without any interference from anyone else. No one exists who solely thinks of themselves as incapable of independent action and thought - you don't require permission or interaction with others everytime you move part of your body or have a thought. There isn't a sole in the world who doesn't think of herself as an autonomous individual. You didn't require someone's assistance to swallow your breakfast this morning, you acted as a distinct seperate individual.
Golly gee! Should we all thank the Culturologist prof for teaching us ignorant elites for free 13 times in 28 hours?
ANother powerful contribution to the conversation by someone too frightened to attach his/her identity to his/her post. You represent your illiterate anonymous tribe well, Anonymous #3!
Randi, I'd invite you to watch the video, as you clearly missed something basic in it. Haidt is *CRYSTAL CLEAR* that the conservative five prong approach to morality INCLUDES the two liberal prongs. That you missed this is pretty amazing.
You are example #7000 or so that I've encountered of Atom-Worlders who evince no ability whatsoever to get outside of their framework long enough to see what negative effects it has. Indeed, you see things in black/white terms--your morality is all good, other moralities are all bad. That's a child's way of seeing things. Spending a little time thinking about the issue makes one see that there is much grey.
You have a LOT of reading to do before you can say anything meaningful or coherent on the issue of culture and the individual. There are some good sources indicated on the syllabi on my web page--have a look there. Or consider auditing just about ANY course in social theory and/or social philosophy at any college or university.
you see things in black/white terms--your morality is all good, other moralities are all bad.
Says the man who referred to the USA as "lots of strip clubs and same sex marriage in Massachusetts...the land of porn, the hook up culture, and endless Gay Pride parades."
"don't you agree that the planet would be better off if everyone saw everyone else as part of their group and aimed to maximize the benefits and minimize the problems for all in an equal fashion? Do you really think in-group loyalty is a good thing given the conflicts this leads to between groups and the denial of cooperation and mutual goal attainment that might otherwise exist?k"
LIke the vast majority of the rest of people on the planet, I have a hierarchy of values in terms of my investment in other people. Like lots of good liberal Americans, I can express a certain level of abstract concern for the lives of all humans, but the differences become apparent when I have to make practical decisions with the limited resources I have.
In those situations, my family is more important to me than people in Bangladesh I don't know. My family is also more important to me than you are, although you (I'm assuming you are an American) would rank somewhere above the Bangladeshis in terms of the amount of investment in real terms I have in your fate.
To imagine that people can or ought to think otherwise is just utopian fantasy. In fact, it's a basically RELIGIOUS idea--Christianity is centered on this, why else did Jesus call for his followers to abandon their families to follow him and the Way, which was about ALL humanity? For this and other reasons, I reject Christianity, just as I reject the 'secular' utopian projects like the 'global in-group' fantasy you present.
"Society is made up of individuals, without individuals there is no society - that's the facts of life 101. "
No, that's American individualist ideology 101. Consult some thinkers who have actually thought hard about this issue and you'll get a different answer.
"The value of do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you cut yourself, you feel pain and you know that cutting others is wrong because they feel pain as well. If you lay down on a soft bed to sleep you know that feels better than sleeping on rocks and you know others would similarly prefer a soft bed to rocks. The individual experiences one has as a human are automatically transferable to other humans, we know instinctively that some of what we feel others likely feel
as well."
Wow.
You do know that "do unto others" comes from a specific culture, right? And that there have existed PLENTY of cultures that do not abide by that rule, that indeed promote as morally good the quick crushing and subjugation of enemies?
You know that cutting others is wrong after cutting yourself eh? WHy does virtually every society then have some kind of cultural practice involving voluntary cutting and scarrification of the body? It hurts, after all. How is it that they ALL act against that 'basic need'?
YOu know how others prefer to sleep, eh? Do you even KNOW anything about how others sleep? Do you know that people can sleep standing up in some cultures, that some cultures do in fact prefer sleeping on hard surfaces, the better to train their bodies to a particular askesis, that cultures vary WILDLY regarding when and how much they sleep? So how valuable is it to point to this as something that 'unites' us, given how much variation there is in how we actually DO it?
Again, it's clear that you haven't thought very hard about much of this.
"You didn't require someone's assistance to swallow your breakfast this morning, you acted as a distinct seperate individual. "
Again, wow. Do you think you were born able to make your own breakfast and eat it? Where did you get the knowledge of what to eat and how to eat it? And what NOT to eat? Did you make all of that up yourself? If so, you're the first.
I wrote: "There is a large literature on the emergence of the notion of the 'individual' in the West as well.".
And you responded: "Nonsesene [sic]."
Are you saying there is no such literature? Would you like a bibliography? YOu can start with Charles Taylor's _SOurces of the Self_, it's a rather fat book, so it'll take you some time to get through, but once you've finished it, I can provide you some more sources.
What you say after "nonsesene" is in fact nonsense and indicates that you don't even know what it means to talk about someone conceiving of themselves as an 'individual.' It is obviously not about whether one is or is not physically separate from others--OF COURSE anyone whose eyes work correctly will note this aspect of reality.
But considering onself an 'individual' in the moral sense that you have been talking about throughout here is another issue entirely and not one reducible to the simple question of physical separation. We know (at least those of us who have bothered to read any history and anthropology) that the moral sense of individualism DOES NOT EXIST in many, many societies, and it DID NOT EXIST always in the West. Human beings can think of themselves and their identities in myriad ways, and in many, many societies they have understood their identities and their moral obligations and rights as intimately collective--tied to others via kinship/family, or nation, or religious belief, or ethnic/racial stock, or some conception of a shared history (even if empirically false).
The very fact that there are people in the world who do not agree with Atom-World morality (which you have already admitted) is in fact EVIDENCE that there are people who do not think of themselves and their moral being in individualist terms.
If human beings are something other than culture, you've indicated only the most trivial of such ways--we eat, we defecate, we sleep. All animal processes that we share with other mammals and indeed with other kinds of living creature.
How do you propose to get from THIS to 'global morality'? Or is your 'global morality' just about agreement on what we eat, how we defecate, and when, where and how we sleep?
Culturologist said "Haidt is *CRYSTAL CLEAR* that the conservative five prong approach to morality INCLUDES the two liberal prongs. That you missed this is pretty amazing.".
It includes them, but deemphasizes them for the sake of the dangerouse "ingroup loyalty" and "purity". That's the problem with conservative morality, it emphasizes artificial boundaries and conflict at the expense of fairness and "not hurting anyone".
Culturologist said "Indeed, you see things in black/white terms--your morality is all good, other moralities are all bad.".
LOL, as anonymous said "Says the man who referred to the USA as "lots of strip clubs and same sex marriage in Massachusetts...the land of porn, the hook up culture, and endless Gay Pride parades.""
I don't say all conservative morality is bad, just that the idea of "ingroup loyalty" and "purity" are and are something that no longer suits our global society - that's caveman morality suited for a time when humans were independent roving bands that rarely encountered each other and didn't need to cooperate on issues like global warming, global trade, global wars, etc.
Culturologist said "You have a LOT of reading to do before you can say anything meaningful or coherent on the issue of culture and the individual".
Nonsense, the problem of ingroup morality and the international conflict it creates is the most meaningful thing we are discussing here. What you need to do is to read Carl Sagan's book Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, its the bible.
The damaging effects of "ingroup loyalty" and "purity" can be seen
in groups that have taken this to extreme like the Fundamentalist Mormon Church of Latter Day Saints". The desire for a closed "pure" society has lead to all manner of birth defects and social problems such as hordes of young men being expelled from their community and turned into dangerous drifters because of competition amongst insular groups.
When I was your age I thought I knew it all too. With the experience of age you'll see that just because you're in university now you don't automatically have a grasp of everything.
Culturologist said " my family is more important to me than people in Bangladesh I don't know. My family is also more important to me than you are, although you (I'm assuming you are an American) would rank somewhere above the Bangladeshis in terms of the amount of investment in real terms I have in your fate.".
That's were your morality falls down. While I am not completely free from my cave-woman inheritance I have the intelligence to say that the stranger is just a important and valuable as the family member, our worth is inherently equal. I most certainly would not value an American above a Bangladeshi, or a Canadian above an American (I'm Canadian by the way). That's immoral and although there may be a temptation to put one ahead of the other due to our unevolved psychology this is something we must work against. Although few of us would admit it the fact is that we are all a little racist inside and those of us who are moral recognize this and work to fight that natural impulse at all times - its the same way with "in-group loyalty".
Its indisputable that the world would be better off without inter-group conflicts and its indisputable that the cave-man morality which places a high value on "in-group loyalty" is responsible for much of it. It is indisputable that part of conservative morality - "ingroup loyalty" and purity is problematic.
Culturologist said "To imagine that people can or ought to think otherwise is just utopian fantasy. In fact, it's a basically RELIGIOUS idea".
Now you're really showing your immaturity. Relgioun is all about "us versus them". Christianity and Judeaism teach that Jews were gods chosen ones. The bible justifies genocide against non-believers. Islam teaches "kill the infidels". Its the nature of the Abrahamic religions to create a fantasy that the world was created especially for our little group and all the outsiders, the non-believers will be tortured for eternity. Religion is the ultimate "us versus them" philosophy. If religion were about global unity as you say there wouldn't have been terrorists flying planes into buildings, there'd be peace in the mid-east, the former Yugoslavia would still be one country, there wouldn't have been "the troubles" in Ireland.
Culturologist said "I reject the 'secular' utopian projects like the 'global in-group' fantasy you present.".
That's extemely unfortunate. The only way we can make the best world possible is to define the ideal and then work to come as close to it as possible. The ideal is a global society without inter-group conflict, its a shame you don't want to be a part of it, its a shame that you're content to have a world and society that isn't the best it can be. Hopefully with time and experience you'll mature and change your attitude.
I said "Society is made up of individuals, without individuals there is no society - that's the facts of life 101. "
Culturologist siad "No, that's American individualist ideology 101.".
No, that's reality - no individuals, no society. No matter how you slice it you can't avoid that. Arguing otherwise is childish denial of reality. Why don't you take a break and look up "society" in the dictionary - it says very clearly there "a group of individuals".
Culturologist said "YOu know how others prefer to sleep, eh? Do you even KNOW anything about how others sleep? Do you know that people can sleep standing up in some cultures, that some cultures do in fact prefer sleeping on hard surfaces, the better to train their bodies to a particular askesis, that cultures vary WILDLY regarding when and how much they sleep?".
Of course there are variations in the way people sleep, but what you're talking about are rare exceptions. Virtually no one sleeps standing up, virtually no one prefers sleeping on rocks to something soft and universally people need sleep, at a minimum we learn that inherently from our own needs, not from culture. Humans are much more similar in the basics of needs and desires than we are differnt. The existence of rare differences doesn't change the fact that we have a good general idea from our own nature what other people's nature is.
Culturologist said "You do know that "do unto others" comes from a specific culture, right?".
It certainly isn't specific to any one culture any more so than "thou shalt not steal" is. The bible merely recognized common beliefs, it didn't create them.
Culturologist said "And that there have existed PLENTY of cultures that do not abide by that rule, that indeed promote as morally good the quick crushing and subjugation of enemies?".
Oh, but you're wrong, they did abide by that rule, but merely within their own group. If they hadn't have had a "do unto others" morality at least within their own group they wouldn't have survived a single generation to reproduce. Once again, the existence of such cultures shows the inherent problems with "ingroup loyalty" in a global society such as we now have. It may have worked well for cavemen but we are no longer cave-people.
Cultureologist said " Do you think you were born able to make your own breakfast and eat it?".
Never said that, what I said was that the act of swallowing is an individual solitary act that requires no one's assistance or permission. You experienced it therefore you have a concept of your self as an individual, as has everyone without exception.
Culturologist said "And you responded: "Nonsesene [sic].".
Oh dear, I made a typo and being the genius you are you caught it, now that just shows I'm entirely wrong and you're entirely right - I concede to your superior intellect, how could I possibly go on...(small things like gloating over someone's typo amuse small minds)
Culturologist said "Are you saying there is no such literature?".
No, what I'm saying is that any literature that says there's no such thing as an individual in some cultures is nonsense. Our physical and mental seperateness from others makes the knowledge of our individuality unavoidable in any and all cultures. There simply is no such thing as a culture where people don't have a concept of themselves as individuals.
Culturologist said "We know (at least those of us who have bothered to read any history and anthropology) that the moral sense of individualism DOES NOT EXIST in many, many societies, and it DID NOT EXIST always in the West.
No one ever said liberals see themselves as morally cut off from all people. Morality is inherently about others. Go back and watch the film again. Liberalism is about "is anyone getting hurt" and fairness. Those concepts are meaningless without the consideration of others. Once again, that is the problem with conservative morality, the pillers of "ingroup loyalty" and "purity" prevent consideration of others. You said so yourself, you don't value all others equally, you see a hierarchy dependent on whose part of your group. That's where your morality is unworkable in a modern society, its a small world and it can't work in the best way possible without equal consideration for all. You don't have euqal consideration for all, you undervalue you fairness, your morality is sorely lacking. Until people like you learn to put aside your tribal mentality the world will continue to suffer from needless counterproductive conflict. Learn to put fairness first, that's the essence of morality and the only philosophy that can unite the world and give us all the best life possible. That's what I mean by global morality, teach the golden rule instead of the nepotism of my family first or the tribalism of my group first. See yourself as a global citizen, not an "american".
You've got an extremely impoverished morality as long as you see "americans" as more important than "bangladeshis".
"Until people like you learn to put aside your tribal mentality the world will continue to suffer from needless counterproductive conflict."
Well, I guess we're doomed. Because I'm not likely in this lifetime to align myself with people like you and your equally confused anonymous buddy.
My general rule is that as soon as someone with whom I'm having a discussion references the dictionary in a discussion about the meaning of technical terms in a scholarly discipline, the discussion has come to an end.
This is certainly not worth any more of my time, and it's clear that you're in no fit state to actually learn anything from anyone, no matter how much more they know about the topic than you.
I like it both ways. I think it's cool to have a group of people you can feel comfortable with, people who understand you even when you're just mumbling. Even in the city people find people they're comfortable with, you have ethnic neighborhoods and gay neighborhoods and rich neighborhoods and poor. But you just won't have enough energy to walk around resenting everybody who isn't one of your group, you just can't do it. And you also cannot make rules, laws, policies that are easy for one group to follow but make it hard for another -- it just doesn't work.
Everybody thinks their own ways are better -- you get that, right Cult, being a sociologist and all?
PS Are you submitting your comments by email or something? I get them in my email, and for some reason your comments don't come mixed with the others -- that's why I didn't realize earlier that you were responding to somebody else.
JimK
Culturologist said "Well, I guess we're doomed. Because I'm not likely in this lifetime to align myself with people like you and your equally confused anonymous buddy.".
That's why you can't convince people you've got anything worthwhile to say. If you can't admit the world would be a better place without the conflict caused by "ingroup loyalty" how can rational person take you seriously in an intellectual discussion.
Culturologist said "My general rule is that as soon as someone with whom I'm having a discussion references the dictionary in a discussion about the meaning of technical terms in a scholarly discipline, the discussion has come to an end.".
You mean the discussion comes to an end when you realize you can't support the absurd idea that society isn't made up of individuals.
Culturologist said "it's clear that you're in no fit state to actually learn anything from anyone, no matter how much more they know about the topic than you.".
If you can't accept the idea that all people should be treated as equals and the overall goal of society should be to maximize the benefits and to minimize the problems for all in an equal manner you're not fit to be teaching anyone anything and its a cinch that you're a long ways from knowing more than me.
My dear Ms. Schimnosky,
My intellectual credentials, in the form of a record of published work at scholarly peer-reviewed sources, can be found quite easily at my web page, which is linked to my profile on blogger--I have been quite successful, thank you, at speaking to rational audiences and engaging in intellectual discussion.
May I ask then to see YOUR credentials? That is, beyond the one-entry blog I find when I click on your name? Where precisely have you demonstrated YOUR ability to speak rationally and convince anyone in an intellectual discussion?
the Culturologist writes,
My dear Ms. Schimnosky,
My intellectual credentials, in the form of a record of published work at scholarly peer-reviewed sources, can be found quite easily at my web page, which is linked to my profile on blogger--I have been quite successful, thank you, at speaking to rational audiences and engaging in intellectual discussion.
May I ask then to see YOUR credentials? That is, beyond the one-entry blog I find when I click on your name? Where precisely have you demonstrated YOUR ability to speak rationally and convince anyone in an intellectual discussion?
Lots of luck...one entry? Wow! How come I am not surprised though by this? LOL. Nevermind...
Jim, may I suggest that you read a book on this subject,
Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America, by James Davison Hunter, Professor of Sociology and Religious Studies at the University of Virginia? Perhaps then you might be less likely to make comments like this,
The kind of Assault on Reason we have witnessed in recent years is not an ongoing debate between honest liberals and honest conservatives who just see the world with different priorities. The "culture wars" reflect an attempt by radical elements to remake the United States in their image, removing elementary Constitutional rights and institutionalizing bigotry and belligerence, to create a fundamentally different America based on authoritarianism and rejecting personal liberty.
What really strikes me as hypocritcal is this,
The "culture wars" reflect an attempt by radical elements to remake the United States in their image
And what, pray do tell, exactly is an abortion on demand, same-sex marriage, inclusive sex-ed curriculum culture that you and TTF support? Is it not an effort to remake the US in YOUR image???
Time to do some homework Jim...then maybe folks like myself will take you for something more than a political partisan hack. Then again, you can simply look at yourself in the mirror, preening and reciting your favorite litany about how Montgomery County is Oh-So-More-Progressive-Than-Anyone-Else, and how the rest of us have so much work to catch up with you, the Enlightend Ones.
Talk about living in a bubble...
BTW, Libby should go to jail and serve his time. Lying under oath is perjury and as such is the intentional obstruction of justice, and it does not matter WHO you are...political corruption is not a Republican phenomenon, just ask any Democrat about Rep. William "Cold Cash" Jefferson...
Orin, those are good questions. Let me first note an important point. These things you mention, "abortion on demand" etc -- have nothing to do with me personally. There is no intention to re-make the world in my own image (and I express myself here as the resident opinionated loudmouth).
I've never had an abortion, and I expect that your use of the phrase "abortion on demand" is probably its first occurrence on this web site. I might be wrong, but it is certainly not part of the TTF platform -- I'm not sure what "on demand" means there. I think most of us would agree that there are times that people need to make hard decisions, and we would prefer that they not be thrown in jail for doing what they have to do. But either way, it's not my own choice -- at my ripe old age I'm not going to be knocking anybody up. My view has nothing to do with making anyone live like I do.
Same-sex marriage, same thing. I don't want to marry another guy -- I've been married to my wife for twenty years and that's the way I like it, uh huh. But that doesn't mean that sometimes two guys don't fall in love and want to spend their lives together. And I would speak out for their right to share the love that they feel, officially, publicly.
And "inclusive sex ed" here just means we don't use the public schools to demean and bad-mouth our friends and neighbors. Some people are gay -- not many, but they add up -- and it's better for kids to know about it, objectively, so those people can live their lives without fear of violence and discrimination. Again, it has nothing to do with me -- I'm not gay, have no gay family members that I know of, I just happen to think it's a better world if we give one another the freedom to live to their God-given potential.
Now, I need to comment on Cult's latest move, which is to throw up the "academic" banner. This isn't a web site for sociologists, Cult, these are mostly ordinary folks. I tend to agree with you in principle, there's nothing more natural than groups forming norms and the entitativity that comes with group identification. The point here isn't that there's something wrong with that very natural human social tendency. The point is that in a diverse society each group has to recognize somehow that its own norms are not the only ones. No group has to give up its own way of life, except to the extent that it makes it impossible to coexist with other groups.
In a small town or an isolated country you can assert that your own norms are correct, come directly from God, whatever. But in a society where two or more groups assert those same things you will have conflict -- look at the Apache and Navajo both claiming to be "Dine." The city can be filled with constant strife, or people can adjust to a new awareness -- and one that is more objective and more accurate -- that they aren't the only game in town. That doesn't seem too threatening, does it?
JimK
How telling. The Cult'ist, a credentialed Western elite intellectual opts for the personal attack to respond to Randi's cogent points.
I agree with Randi 100% on this thread, that is, she's convinced me, but I don't have a website listing my credentials so I guess I don't count to the young brash college professor who thinks he knows it all. You know, you can learn things from other places besides academia, such as reading and studying on your own, young man.
"Now, I need to comment on Cult's latest move, which is to throw up the "academic" banner. This isn't a web site for sociologists, Cult, these are mostly ordinary folks. "
So ought we expect 'ordinary folks' to know nothing about argument and facts and logic? Your standards are low, my friend. Very low. But then so is the general level of YOUR discourse here.
I didn't throw up any 'banner'--I merely pointed to an objective indication that I quite understand how to have what Ms. Schimnosky called "intellectual discussions." She has no such evidence, only her own claim that she's 'rational,' which is instantly disproven to any objective person upon five minutes' examination of what she has written here (e.g., referring to the dictionary definition of 'society' as though this were a reasonable way to get at a tremendously complicated concept that has been discussed and nuanced for more than a hundred years now in the academic social sciences).
If 'rationality' consists of responding to references of sources (e.g., Taylor's SOurces of the Self) that make a point I made here by denying they exist, then intelligent people of whatever political stripe should leave that to the populist mob and have nothing to do with it. The Aunt Beas of the world may be 'convinced,' but intelligent people will understand what is going on.
Whether you or anyone else much likes it (and there is indeed MUCH populist hatred of the academy these days, on the political left as well as the right--both Aunt Bea and the several--or perhaps it's only one--anonymous writers here have engaged in anti-intellectual rhetoric of the populist variety--this is driven by many things, not least of which is the recognition that it is always easier to employ populist anti-intellectual rhetoric than it is to mount an intellectual case), the university remains the model of disinterested and objective inquiry into facts.
This certainly doesn't mean everyone has to be an academic to have an informed opinion, but it does mean that people who cannot even be bothered to adhere to minimal standards of intellectual inquiry as ppracticed in academia (e.g., knowledge of relevant literatures, or at least willingness to consult them and inform oneself; the recognition of the difference between naked claims and claims bolstered with evidence; the ability to get outside one's own political biases long enough to understand the cases made by others in other positions; the refusal of the strategy of deliberately misinterpreting what an interlocuter says--e.g., Schimnosky's ludicrous insinuation that I see the US as *only* about sexual libertinism, when my reference to that point was in the context of a demonstration that immigrants to this country come here PRECISELY because of other and in my view much more positive aspects of American society having to do with the opportunity for work and financial well-being)can generally be discounted from consideration on serious matters.
It is of course the case that much of the blogosphere is not at all about intellectual inquiry into anything--it is rather a place for groups of partisans to shout choruses of "HOORAY, AREN'T WE GREAT!" to one another. It seems clear that my initial assumption that this place might be at least to some degree about the former was incorrect, and it is almost entirely Hooray for us chorus members to be found here.
Well, carry on.
Cult, I earned my PhD in social psychology the hard way, and have contributed dozens of papers toward the understanding of the relationship between the cognitive individual and the society he or she is embedded in, and I don't appreciate your pompous, self-serving attacks on my friends and myself.
If there is a populist rebellion against intellectuals, it is because know-it-all stuffed-shirts like yourself give the rest of us a bad name.
JimK
Culturologist said "May I ask then to see YOUR credentials?".
Now that's funny. You can't debate me so you want to compare education points. Don't you know the "arguement from authority" is a logical fallacy? The truth of a position isn't determined by the authority, knowledge, or position of the person asserting it.
Well, let me tell you my credentials, I dropped out of school in grade 11, in 1985 I competed for the position of Information Systems Manager in Environment Canada against a fellow with a PHD in computer science. That's an exam style interview with questions in a variety of areas of expertise that are scored according to the answers. I beat him badly in all areas including the statistics where the interviewers expected him to excel. I worked as a computer expert for 13 years and have spent the last 12 years sitting on my acreage, staring out the window and comntemplating life's bigger questions. You don't do that wihout coming to a few conclusions about what's important and what isn't.
As to your credentials, I value your opinion no more than a wino I might find behind a dumpster, I am prepared to take both of your arguemnets based on their merits and your background means nothing to me. I judge you based on the quality of your arguments and what I've found coming out of you has been sadly disappointing.
What epitomizes our exchange is my statment "Until people like you learn to put aside your tribal mentality the world will continue to suffer from needless counterproductive conflict."
and your lamentable response "Well, I guess we're doomed. Because I'm not likely in this lifetime to align myself with people like you".
You would rather see the world destroyed than acknowledge that there's a better way to do things than to divide ourselves into antagonistic competing groups. You confuse aligning yourself with me with adopting the supreme social policy of maximizing the benefit and minimizing the problems for all in an equal fashion. Its tragic that you can't put aside your cave man mentality of "ingroup loyalty" to acknowledge the obvious and indisputable, that to make the world the best possible place we have to define the ideal so that we can work at coming as close to it as possible.
You've proven that your "credentials" have been pathetically inadequate to counter small-mindedness. Its a shame that refusing to acknowledge what is right and good is more important to you than making the world the best place it can be. A truly moral person puts fairness and equality first.
Orin said "And what, pray do tell, exactly is an abortion on demand, same-sex marriage, inclusive sex-ed curriculum culture that you and TTF support? Is it not an effort to remake the US in YOUR image???".
LOL, Orin, how naive and hypocritical you are. None of those things is an effort to remake you in our image. No one's going to force you to have an abortion, a same sex marriage, or to take comprehensive sex ed. In contrast people like you ARE trying to remake us in your image. You ARE trying to force people not to have same sex marriages, abortions, and to keep them from taking comprehensive sex ed. It is you who is trying to force liberals to live according to your desires, no liberals are trying to force you to live according to their desires.
And Orin, we're still waiting for answers to the questions:
How does allowing a gay couple to marry keep men and women apart?
How does allowing a gay couple to marry deprive any child of a father or a mother?
I've asked you repeatedly to give a cause and effect step by step explanation and you've avoided that with changes of subject and nebulous talk of public institutions and no fault divorce. How about you give a concrete answer or admit that you can't, that in neither case your assertions are true?
Right, high school dropout. That's just about what I imagined.
Where's your degree from, JimK? Where do you teach? WHat journals have you published in? Written any books? I can't seem to find any such info linked to you here, not even your last name.
"Right, high school dropout. That's just about what I imagined."
Tell us, Cult, are any of your students former high school drop outs and do you look down your nose at them too? How do you feel about people who were placed in "special education" classes?
Culturologist at June 27, 2007 2:09 PM
Culturologist said "So ought we expect 'ordinary folks' to know nothing about argument and facts and logic?".
Culturologist, you're the one that showed yourself to be not up to the challenge. I challenge you to put together a cohesive argument as to how "ingroup loyalty" and purity are anything but destructive in a global society. Simply asserting "I have credentials therefore I'm right and don't need to address the points you raised" is not argument, fact, or logic.
Culturologist said "She has no such evidence, only her own claim that she's 'rational,' which is instantly disproven to any objective person upon five minutes' examination of what she has written here".
Once again, Culturologist, you've failed to refute my point in any way that the ultimate overall goal of society should be to maximize the benefits and minimize the problems for all in an equal manner. You've failed to refute the point that the essence of morality is "do whatever you want but hurt no one" - "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Instead you verbally nurse your wounds with pompous empty talk of social "sciences" and "standards of intellectual inquiry as ppracticed [sic] [see I can do it too)] in academia".
Culturologist said "the refusal of the strategy of deliberately misinterpreting what an interlocuter says--e.g., Schimnosky's ludicrous insinuation that I see the US as *only* about sexual libertinism".
You referred to it as "the land of porn, the hook up culture, and endless Gay Pride parades" and as "radically individualist American *culture*". You had ample opportunity to expand on what the U.S. is and that was solely how you chose to characterize it.
Culturologist said "my reference to that point was in the context of a demonstration that immigrants to this country come here PRECISELY because of other and in my view much more positive aspects of American society".
What you said was they come here because they can make more money - hardly a bountiful description of "much more positive aspects of American society".
I suggest again to you and Orin that you read Carl Sagan's "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors". It's an exceptional description of the ancient roots of conflict in society that once served a useful purpose but which now holds us back from creating the best possible world for all. Its time to put aside the "us versus them" mentality inherent in conservatism and recognize that "us" IS "them".
Culturologist said "Right, high school dropout. That's just about what I imagined.".
What's funny is that you're afraid to deal with the points raised by this high school dropout because you can see my points stand on their own merits and apart from me whereas your's do not.
That's a tough deal, isn 't it Cult? As for me, PhD UNC-Chapel Hill. Journals: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Social Psychology Quarterly, Transactions in Evolutionary Computation, Science, Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Adaptive Behavior Journal. Book: yes. Chapters and Proceedings, too many to mention.
JimK
Anonymous,
You may be unaware of this, but by definition in the US you have to complete high school to enroll in a university, so all the students I see have high school diplomas. That is, all of them are better prepared for intellectual interaction than Ms. Schimnosky.
MInd giving some titles and perhaps a last name, mysterious JimK? Or is your work a secret to be divulged only to your 'friends' here? I'd be quite interested to see who you are.
And you didn't mention where you work.
Ah, that makes about three times for the Carl Sagan reference from Schimnosky. Do you know the titles of any other books? Have you actually read any of them?
And why so much animosity toward cavemen and winos? Isn't it tolerance for all that you Atom-Worlders strive for? Will the cavemen and winos not be tolerated?
And such politically incorrect terms too--I think they would prefer "alternatively housed" and "enamored of spirited beverages" or something more caring.
Don't be so angry and mean-spirited with those who are not like you! It's not very liberal!
Has anybody else notice how "Atomic" and "not-Latticelike" Culty is? Everything's personal with him, it's all about judging people and showing off how great he is with his big college degree. He hasn't done an ounce of "Lattice-World" connection building, it's just him against the inferior idiots.
He's like one a them there hippo crits, ain't he.
illitrit
"I challenge you to put together a cohesive argument as to how "ingroup loyalty" and purity are anything but destructive in a global society."
The argument scarcely needs to be made (at least not for high school graduates)--just look at the world you live in. It is fundamentally informed by those evil things you cannot tolerate and see as "[nothing] but destructive"--would you say the world we live in then is ONLY about destruction? That there is nothing at all of a constructive nature going on among those in-groups with their silly evil worldviews? Are you that Manichean (your dictionary will come in handy now) and blinded by your child-like ideology?
If it's all destructive, how on earth has the world managed to continue? How is it we have not all perished from all that destruction, especially since it's been going on since 'caveman days,' to quote you?
(I can hear you now: 'Iit's only because of the wonderful morally PURE global morality pushers like myself that it hasn't collapsed into the rubbish heap'--but certainly that's foolishness, as there are so few of you and so many of us).
The answer of course is that it is perfectly possible for nation-states with very different cultures to co-exist for the most part harmoniously, so long as they retain their distinctiveness and autonomy (that is, do not have cultural conformity enforced upon them by deluded moral purists like you).
Even within relatively diverse societies like Western nations significant cultural difference exists and the different groups can adhere to their definitions of moral purity and impurity in most cases without much controversy between them--and when conflicts emerge they are generally dealt with by the cultural majority group setting the terms as to what is normative and other groups falling into line or going somewhere else and establishing their own society.
That's the way things have worked in the world for a very long time, and there's no indication that it cannot go on in this state for a long time to come, your Chicken Little act notwithstanding.
If nothing else, we've established that Ms. Schimnosky doesn't like 'purity' as a moral framework. She's blathered on and on and on about that.
And YET...isn't it funny how much one finds the same kind of moral preachiness and self-righteousness in her rants that one finds in the far right Christian fundamentalists?
Look closely at her words--the central theme that emerges is 'my way of looking at the world is clearly superior to all others, those who do not agree with me must be seen as 'shame[ful]', to quote her "A truly moral person puts fairness and equality first"--in other words, all others are NOT "truly moral," that is, they are falsely moral, or immoral, and impure.
This is of course the lie of radical atom-worldism--it uses the language of relativist acceptance of all perspectives, and then shriekingly and ferociously attacks all other positions (even positions, like mine, that it gives no evidence of having understood) as The Great Satan. No different from the Christian extremists, except it's a different intolerant God being served.
So stuck in this way of seeing things is she that it is literally unthinkable to her that anyone else could conceivably see the world in other than the black/white, good/evil terms in which she sees it.
This is why she can stupidly insinuate that SHE knows better than I what I was saying when I referred to the US as "the land of porn" in countering someone's foolish statement about immigration. To imagine that this is ALL I see in American culture goes well beyond the obvious context of the passage--indeed, an intelligent person (and at this point it should be clear that I do not give Schimnosky the benefit of the doubt as to membership in this group) would immediately have noted that elsewhere I spoke of how I value Americans as a category more highly than I do unknown people of other societies, and would have seen it as rather ridiculous to imagine that could be so if in fact I saw US culture as purely negative and worthy of criticism.
Ms. Schimnosky and her anonymous friend (who is perhaps Ms. Schimnosky herself, endeavoring to make it look as though there is a chorus of fools here rather than just her), however, cannot be counted on for anything resembling reasonable behavior. She/they are too much into the moral purity business of attacking the enemy--even though they have basically no idea (beyond the post in which I emphasized that I identify with New Deal Democratic politics) of exactly what my position actually IS.
A *purer* case of adherence to shrill moral purity at the expense of rational thought than Ms. Schimnosky would be hard to find. She should put out her hand to her radical Christian 'enemies' and recognize how much she actually has in common with them.
The both of them are pretty clearly stumbling blocks in the way of rational social policy.
Illitrit,
I'll tell you what I've noticed--you clearly have nothing to contribute to any conversation about anything. Just third-grade stupidities. The Internet equivalent of making fart noises with your underarm.
Are you shooting for Cartman as your intellectual model? Well, congratulations, you've just about got it.
Your parents must be SO proud of you.
Whose "Cartman?" Some big un-versity perfesser?
by definition in the US you have to complete high school to enroll in a university
No, Cult, you don't. During World War II, a tad before your time, many high school students went off to fight before high school graduation. That's why the GED was created.
Here, learn something from Wikipedia, free of charge:
The Tests of General Educational Development, or GED® Tests, is a battery of five tests that, when passed, certifies the taker has American or Canadian high school-level academic skills. To pass the GED Tests and earn a GED credential, test takers must score higher than 40 percent of graduating high school seniors nationwide. Some jurisdictions require that students pass additional tests, such as an English proficiency exam or civics test.
The GED is sometimes referred to as a "General Equivalency Diploma" or "General Education(al) Diploma ." These and other improper references to the “GED” trademark are not authorized by the American Council on Education, which develops the tests and sets the rules for their use. Jurisdictions award a "Certificate of General Educational Development" or similarly titled credential to persons who meet the passing score requirements.
Only individuals who have not earned a high school diploma may take the GED Tests. The tests were originally created to help veterans after World War II return to civilian life. Common reasons for GED recipients not having received a high school diploma include immigration to the United States or Canada; homeschooling; and leaving high school early due to a lack of interest, the inability to pass required courses, the need to work, or personal problems.
More than 15 million people have received a GED credential since the program began inception. One in every seven Americans with high school credentials received the GED, as well as one in twenty college students. 70% of GED recipients complete at least the 10th grade before leaving school, and the same number are over the age of 19, with the average age being 24.
In addition to English, the GED Tests are available in Spanish, French, large print, audiocassette, and braille. Tests and test preparation are routinely offered in correctional facilities and on military bases in addition to more traditional settings. Individuals living outside the United States, Canada, or U.S. territories may be eligible to take the GED Tests through Thomson Prometric...
Approximately 95% of colleges will accept GED graduates, though they will typically require them to take the SATs and/or ACT. Some admissions boards request extra letters of recommendation in addition to the standard number already required of applicants when reviewing GED applicants. (Homeschooled students who receive the GED are the main exception to this rule, since many homeschooled students cannot receive traditional diplomas and need to finish their high school careers with the GED.) If a 4-year college will not accept a GED graduate, they can attend any community college in the United States, after which they can transfer to almost any 4-year school.
The main problem GED recipients encounter when trying to transfer from community colleges to 4-year schools is the lack of SAT and/or ACT scores, which GED recipients typically do not have. Due to this and other factors, most colleges do not require transfer students to submit such scores when applying beyond a certain point in their college careers, typically after one year or earning approximately 30 college-level credits. Many colleges, especially public institutions, also offer scholarships and other forms of financial aid specifically for GED recipients in order to help them finance their education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GED
And here's a link to the American Council on Education, which developed and oversees the adminstration of the GED.
http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=GEDTS
Yeah, Aunt Bea, the GED is substantively high school equivalency. And your point, beyond trying to play the same child's game of 'gotcha' that Cartman is playing, is...? Do you seriously imagine that this is news to me or anyone?
Cartman had asked me if I taught any high school dropouts, and I said no. "High school dropout" (and since Schimnosky did not define herself as "GED recipient" but as someone who left school prior to graduation, hence my use of the term) is normally not the way, in my experience, that people with GEDs refer to themselves--they say that they have a high school education, or a GED, or some such.
It's a wee bit silly to imagine that what I meant by was not inclusive of the GED, since the test equivalency is basically universally known and accepted.
Having said that, at the school where I teach, the GED would generally not put you in good standing as an applicant. A very large number of GED recipients in this day and age (well after WWII, I trust you know) are those who failed to graduate high school for more prosaic reasons than war in Europe--e.g., they were behavioral problems, or they just flunked out. Those folks are not likely to do well at a rigorous university.
This is nice too on Schimnosky's closet fundamentalism--she refers to Sagan's book as "the bible."
Liberals can't have sacred texts, Randi, didn't you know that? Nothing's sacred anymore! Sacredness is too messed up in that evil business of tradition, in-groups, and purity. C'mon, a little consistency, please!
Apparently Culty doesn't comprehend the difference between "The Bible" and "the bible."
"The Bible" is the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament; the sacred scriptures of some other religion (as Judaism)
Compare that to "the bible," which is a publication that is preeminent especially in authoritativeness or wide readership, as the fisherman's bible or the bible of the entertainment industry.
There's nothing "sacred" about "the bible."
My point is that your statement "by definition in the US you have to complete high school to enroll in a university" is wrong. The truth is that ninety-five percent of colleges and 100% of community colleges accept students who do not "complete high school" but who instead pass the GED with a "score higher than 40 percent of graduating high school seniors nationwide."
I doubt you spend very much time interacting with high school students, which is probably a good thing given your disdain for and impatience with people who are less educated than you are. I volunteer in a Montgomery County (the school district this website is about) high school in a lower SES urban area with many immigrant families. Over 20 languages are spoken in the homes of its students. The vast majority of students there who do not finish high school drop out because they've made a baby or because they have to work to help support their families.
"The vast majority of students there who do not finish high school drop out because they've made a baby"
Yeah, as I said, behavioral problems. Young people who cannot abide by basic rules regarding sexual conduct often wind up in such trouble and they reap the sad crop of reduced educational and employment opportunities.
This is why there are a lot of people who would like to see cultural changes regarding the messages we send these kids regarding teen sexual expression.
Good for you for volunteering with high school kids--in point of fact, I don't spend much time around them, as I teach in a university. I spend more time around toddlers, as my wife and I have one of our own.
You cannot begin to know how funny it is to me that you would think I have 'disdain' for people with less education than I have. My whole family, who as I've already told Schimnosky is the single most important group of people in the world to me, has less education than I do, because I grew up as one of those 'lower SES urban' kids you are now working with, eating government issued free cheese and going to the store with food stamps to get our groceries. The difference between my family and some other folks is that they respect education and understand its value--my grandfather was one of the wisest people I have ever known, with not even a high school education, but he would have quickly and effortlessly assented to the idea that I know a hell of a lot more about how society works than he did. Part of his wisdom was knowing the limits of his knowledge.
And then there are people like Schimnosky and Cartman here who parade a lack of education and reading as though it were an advantage in intellectual matters, respond to statements by experts about their fields with 'Nonsense' and references to the dictionary, and other such foolishness. They are so eager to engage the political 'enemy' that they simply open fire with their pathetically weak weapons, not even bothering to know who they are in fact firing at.
I don't have disdain for people with less education than I have. I have disdain for those who present themselves as people who know what they are talking about and then demonstrate clearly that they don't by citing astronomers as experts in social and political philosophy. Or by not even knowing basic facts about immigration and then talking about it as something they thoroughly understand.
It is not, as the mysterious JimK would have it, being a 'stuffed shirt academic' to reject the kinds of illiterate shenanigans Schimnosky and Cartman are engaged in. And if you have been 'convinced' by her non-argument, then I'd suggest that you too need to read some more.
That suggestion does not indicate, as you claimed earlier, that I think I know it all. But I *certainly* know more than Schimnosky or Cartman about the topic of morality and society--I have been writing and teaching on just this topic for more than 15 years now.
We have already seen their credentials.
Oh, you got me, Cartman. That's precisely what I meant, that Schimnosky thinks Sagan's book is in fact the Christian Bible. Yes, that's it. Hoo boy, you are clever. No sneaking anything by you.
Please, do continue with the fart noises. Very entertaining. When do they lock you away for the night?
Cult, I suggest you print out this thread and go sit on the toilet or somewhere quiet and read it. Look at what you've said and what others have said. Think about the Atom and Lattice concepts that you're so happy with and apply those concepts to your presentation here.
Randi takes an extreme position sometimes, but she expresses herself well -- you really don't need a college degree to know bullshit when you see it. Her atheism is harsh and uncompromising, and her views of sexuality and morality follow on that in a way that any black-hearted existentialist would envy. It's unblinking, and she's right a lot of the time (though she is a bulldog once she gets started).
Some of the others here are ... messin' wit your head. And they do that because you're so easy.
I mean it. Print it. Sit down. Read it. Look at yourself. Come on, man, I've seen your vita. You say you're from the streets, and I believe you, I've crashed in a couple of back seats my own self. OK, now you got the big French titles and references to people nobody gives a shit about... yes, everyone's impressed, you've made your point. Now it's time for you to look around and remember who you are.
JimK
I'm still waiting, JimK.
You calling me a liar?
JimK
Hey, thanks for your concern, JimK. I'd really appreciate it though if you'd send that information I requested a while back--really want to look into your work and see if I can learn anything.
You know, always looking to expand my horizons intellectually. That's why I spend time interacting with the Schimnoskys and Cartmans of the world. Helps prepare me for that rare 18 year old Bucknell student who comes into my classroom imagining he knows at least as much about the topic as anybody else on earth does, however incoherent and unread he is. (and btw that you think Schimnosky "expresses herself well" indicates you probably need to see better student work in your teaching--she would immediately get sent to the writing center here at Bucknell for LOTS of help).
Hey, evrybody, I just found out Culty here plays an Ovation through a Polytone. Oh, ware are some tisues to stick in my eers?
illitrit
I'm calling you a procrastinator. Don't keep me in suspense!
Oh, no, not that. Not a procrastinator! Please!
Listen, Smart Guy, here's the deal. This is the Internet, and nobody cares about your degrees and your French titles, OK? And they don't care about mine, either, and that's not what this is about. I could be lying, I could be telling the truth, it doesn't matter, I could be a poodle for all you know.
PhD, poodle, nobody can tell the difference, is that hard to grasp? Now -- try getting down off your high-horse and talking to people with some respect and see what happens. Cuz right now, people are picturing a frizzy little ball on the end of your tail.
Hey, that's not true, is it, about the Polytone and the Ovation? The Ovation, that's a poodle axe, isn't it?
JimK
Guess the mystery is cleared up. Thanks!
Culturologist said "But I *certainly* know more than Schimnosky or Cartman about the topic of morality and society".
Obviously not. You've demonstrated an impoverished view of morality and society and a downright scary disregard for the conflicts in the world in particular between Islam and the west.
When people fought with sticks and stones there was relatively little damage they could do but with the advent of modern technology the threat is much more severe. We are rapidly approaching a time when nuclear weapons will be widely available and its entirely possible if not likely that mankind will not survive itself.
At the core of fundamentalist Christianity and Islam is the belief that the world is an evil place and many fundamentalists desire to see an end to what they see as an inherent evil and believe this will bring the reign of heaven. Islam in particular teaches that it is muslim's rightful place to dominate the world and to do it by force if necessary. The hatred of Islam for the west is not a situation to take lightly and sadly you do.
The destruction of world war II was legendary and there is no reason to believe that history won't repeat itself and yet you come here with your unbelievably naive attitude that everything is sweet and wonderful and "The answer of course is that it is perfectly possible for nation-states with very different cultures to co-exist for the most part harmoniously, so long as they retain their distinctiveness and autonomy".
Give your head a shake. You question my intellecual abilities and then you come up with profound absurdities like that?! This is why your "credentials" are meaningless, you talk like a fresh university student who thinks mere attendence makes him an intellectual. That you think retaining distinctiveness and autonomy ensures harmony is profoundly foolish - do you even think about the asurdities you spout? Iraq and Iran were distinctive and autonomous, how exactly did that ensure their harmony? How exactly did distinctiveness and autonomy ensure harmony in the former Yugoslavia? Autonomy can only be exercised when it is on the condition that no one gets hurt, when its set in the framework of fairness, the appropriately priortized pillers of liberal morality. When autonomy is based on the piller of conservative morality, "ingroup loyalty" its trouble.
Your failure to recognize the seriousness of the situation the planet is in highlights your obsession with trivialities and irrelevancies to the expense of the problems that face us - us, the global society, not us the americans, or us the Canadians, or us the culturologist's family.
Your failure to acknowledge the vast need for improvements in society would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. Genocide in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia (caused by the "purity" you conservatives so value), sectarian violence in Northern Ireland, trouble in Somalia that continues to this day, Chechnya, Darfur, tensions between India and Pakistan, tribal conflicts in Pakistan. Conflict in the west bank and gaza strip, Hamass determined to destroy Israel, the situation in Iraq with Islam against the west not to mention the virtual civil war between shiite and sunnis that threatens to boil over the entire middle east, Lebanon, no end in sight to the conflict in Afghanistan, and probably dozens of other conflicts around the world I'm not aware of.
And you come here and try to tell us everything's hunky dory and there's no problem with traditional conservative morality, the morality that's dominant in the vast majority of these hot spots. And you come here and try to tell us you know more than me and there's no problem with the "ingroup loyalty" that feeds these conflicts. Like a fool you ignore the state of the world and say "That's the way things have worked in the world for a very long time, and there's no indication that it cannot go on in this state for a long time to come".
When any third rate group can have a nuclear weapon things definitely won't "go on in this state for a long time to come".
I don't know which is more stunning, your arrogance or your foolishness. What kind of a moron thinks there's no room for improvement in this society and the conservative morality that's failed to prevent one tragedy after another? You need to stop your navel gazing and take a look at the world around you, its a long ways from being as good as it can be.
If you can't think of some damn good reasons not to advance the idea that the ultimate social goal has to be to maximize the benefits and minimize the problems for all in an equal fashion you would be damn well advised to do so. If you can't think of some damn good reasons not to promote the value of fairness over "ingroup loyalty" and "purity" you'd be damn well advised to do so. You've ranted at length about how smart you are and all your meaningless "credentials" and its abundantly clear that your devoid of such "damn good reasons".
Yeah, you're right, the world has been dominated by your conservative "morality", and look at the sorry state of so much of it. And you sit there with a fatuous smile on your face and brag about how wonderful conservative "morality" is and say "everything's fine" and "it can go on in this state for a long time to come". That's what's called childish.
My statement "Autonomy can only be exercised when it is on the condition that no one gets hurt, when its set in the framework of fairness, the appropriately priortized pillers of liberal morality" should have read "Autonomy can only be exercised safely when it is on the condition that no one gets hurt, when its set in the framework of fairness, the appropriately priortized pillers of liberal morality"
"You've demonstrated an impoverished view of morality and society and a downright scary disregard for the conflicts in the world in particular between Islam and the west."
You haven’t the slightest idea what I think about “the conflicts in the world” since I have said precisely nothing about them. But that won’t stop you from yammering about what you imagine I MUST think, eh?
"When people fought with sticks and stones there was relatively little damage they could do but with the advent of modern technology the threat is much more severe. We are rapidly approaching a time when nuclear weapons will be widely available and its entirely possible if not likely that mankind will not survive itself."
Ah, yes, Chicken Little, the sky is falling. And it’s been falling for a long time now. It was falling back during the ‘30s, and it was falling throughout the Cold War, and now it’s falling again. And yet somehow it hasn’t fallen, despite the clucking of the Chicken Littles from Canada and elsewhere. So now that Iran will have nuclear weapons, the sky is falling FOR REAL, huh? Unless we all agree with the genius from Canada and throw away our spears and caveman clothes! Right.
"At the core of fundamentalist Christianity and Islam is the belief that the world is an evil place and many fundamentalists desire to see an end to what they see as an inherent evil and believe this will bring the reign of heaven. "
So? They’re crackpots doused in a kooky utopian ideology, just like you. Nonetheless, the vast majority of them seem perfectly content to live in the world up until the time Jesus or the Mahdi comes to get them. Hindus and Buddhists also think the world is fundamentally evil, and they haven’t brought the Apocalypse to us yet, even though they’ve been around a long time.
You sound ever so much like the right-wing maniacs you purport to oppose—‘we face unmitigated evil and total disaster!!!!!!!!’ And you’re really a PRO at demonizing those you don’t like, again, just like some of the Christian wackjobs you purport to dislike. You could have given Fallwell lessons in how to set up a cardboard SATAN image of your enemy and then wail pathetically away at it. Superb demonstration of the hypocrisy on much of the part of the kook left that you inhabit—talk, talk, talk about tolerance and ‘fairness,’ and then the most unfair, intolerant, ignorant, backwoods caricatures of everybody you don’t like. Well done!
Why don’t you actually try to LEARN something about Christians and Muslims before you blabber on about what they want and what they’re willing to do to get it? Christian Smith has a nice little book Christian America—what he did in that book is actually GO TALK TO FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS to see what they thought. Lo and behold, he found the situation was far more complicated there than dolts like you can even conceive. Alan Wolfe has written a lot about this too. Why don’t you google them? Stick them in your reading list, if it’s not too backlogged with Carl Sagan books.
"Islam in particular teaches that it is muslim's rightful place to dominate the world and to do it by force if necessary. "
More hysterical and uninformed stupidity that sounds IDENTICAL to the kinds of crude rubbish spouted by the Fallwell crowd. Islam, like Christianity, is a complex phenomenon, and there is a GIGANTIC literature devoted to it. Why don’t you consult some of it before you rant? You might discover some useful facts, e.g., that the Islamic world is not united, and that the divisions within it make it highly unlikely we’ll see any kind of concentrated Islamic imperial project throughout the globe. Or that the West has allies in Islamic societies who are aiding us in trying to stamp out the Bin Laden crowd. In your simple-minded view, it’s the monolith ISLAM, slogging away at world domination—a cartoon, that. Hardly reasonable analysis of the situation.
"The destruction of world war II was legendary and there is no reason to believe that history won't repeat itself "
Oh, there are lots of reasons to believe history won’t repeat itself on that score. Japan and Germany are our allies now, there is no Soviet Union or communist Europe, who will be the West’s opponent in WWIII? The Islamic world? Please. Christian fundamentalists within our borders? Please. China is a much more realistic option, but I note you haven’t said anything about them, as they fall outside the parameters of your insane, rabid hatred of all things religious (except for your own crazy global morality pseudo-religion).
"and yet you come here with your unbelievably naive attitude "
Now THAT’s FUNNY ! You believe everybody in the world has to (and can) be made to love strangers in Bangladesh as much as they love their children, and I’M “naïve”! Bravo!
"that everything is sweet and wonderful"
Yes, that’s exactly what I said. Are you Quebecoise, perchance? Your command of English leaves much to be desired.
"Give your head a shake. You question my intellecual abilities "
No, I no longer question your intellectual abilities—you have made it abundantly clear that none exist to be questioned.
"then you come up with profound absurdities like that?! This is why your "credentials" are meaningless, you talk like a fresh university student "
And you talk like someone who wouldn’t know where the university was if someone gave her five sets of directions and she was a block away.
"That you think retaining distinctiveness and autonomy ensures harmony "
Do you know what the term “for the most part” means? It is not equivalent to “ensures,” for your information.
"Your failure to acknowledge the vast need for improvements in society would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. Genocide in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia (caused by the "purity" you conservatives so value), sectarian violence in Northern Ireland, trouble in Somalia that continues to this day, Chechnya, Darfur, tensions between India and Pakistan, tribal conflicts in Pakistan. Conflict in the west bank and gaza strip, Hamass determined to destroy Israel, the situation in Iraq with Islam against the west not to mention the virtual civil war between shiite and sunnis that threatens to boil over the entire middle east, Lebanon, no end in sight to the conflict in Afghanistan, and probably dozens of other conflicts around the world I'm not aware of.
And you come here and try to tell us everything's hunky dory and there's no problem with traditional conservative morality, the morality that's dominant in the vast majority of these hot spots. "
Primitive think: reduce complicated situations to the kind of simplicity that even a brain-damaged gorilla could grasp. So, forget about having to bone up on your history, understand colonialism, modernization, state-building, economic competition and conflict, and a host of other factors. It’s WAY easier to just make up a comic book GREAT SATAN (people who insist on preferring their children to their neighbor’s children) and go from there. You are a laugh riot.
"Like a fool you ignore the state of the world and say "That's the way things have worked in the world for a very long time, and there's no indication that it cannot go on in this state for a long time to come"."
Absolutely nothing you’ve said here negates that statement. All the conflict you mentioned happened or is happening, and yet the world goes on, and people live their lives, and lots of them are pretty happy for at least some parts of their time on the planet.
If you’ve a problem with that, maybe the problem isn’t with the world; maybe it’s with YOU. I’ve met a lot of demented people like you who are convinced the world needs to change to suit THEIR pet ideology, despite the fact that the vast bulk of people on the globe aren’t interested, thank you, in becoming one of the ‘global morality’ kool-aid drinkers, and despite the fact that the ‘global morality’ position is so patently untenable as anything other than an abstract bit of feel-good sappiness with no real practical value whatsoever.
Do you have any children? Do you have a spouse? Do you have a mother or a father? Any other family members? Friends? Are you consistent in your ‘fairness’ dogma in dealing with them? Whenever you imagine spending any time or money or energy on any of them, do you make certain you are giving an equal amount of time, money, energy to EVERYBODY ELSE ON THE PLANET, who after all is equal to that person who just happens to be related to you? You said you own a house and some property. HOW DARE YOU?! Don’t you know you have no more right to those goods than everyone else on the planet? Why don’t you divide them up evenly among all your global brothers and sisters? Do you pay taxes? Do you know that those taxes are certainly going toward benefits largely for OTHER CANADIANS, rather than being equally doled out to everyone on the planet? (and indeed if the Canadian government tried to dole them out in the hare-brained manner that would follow from your half-wit philosophy, sane voters would remove them from power at the soonest election) HOW DARE YOU ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO USE THOSE FUNDS UNFAIRLY? A true advocate of ‘fairness’ would refuse to pay the tax and give the money instead evenly to everyone on the planet (you’d have to do it from jail, probably, but that’s good—you could derive some good suffering to give fire to your ideological crusade!). HOW ON EARTH DO YOU HAVE SO MUCH TIME AND ENERGY TO SPEND TYPING MESSAGES FOR A BLOG? Don’t you know that most poor Bangladeshis don’t even have computers and therefore can’t even read your heartfelt and noble paeans to the unfairness they suffer? You should be using your energy and time more FAIRLY! Give up your computer and your internet service and send that money too to all your global brothers and sisters! C’mon, if it’s FAIRNESS we are striving for, you’ve got a LOT of work to do!
"What kind of a moron thinks there's no room for improvement in this society"
Certainly not the kind of moron who attributes things to interlocutors that they didn’t say or write. THAT is a very very special kind of moron, a moron of a particularly PURE hue, a moron who can’t be bothered to actually try to understand what others are saying because she ALREADY KNOWS what they MUST think and mean.
"You need to stop your navel gazing and take a look at the world around you, its a long ways from being as good as it can be."
And thankfully we’ve got a high school dropout in Canada to tell us precisely how good it ought to be! HOORAY! WE’RE SAVED!
Note: I deleted a couple of comments here that contained unnecessarily personal information. This blog is not about anybody's personal life or their job, unless they decide to talk about that. Sorry if I interrupted the flow of the conversation.
JimK
Well, I'll give you this culturologist, what your writing lacks in quality you attempt to make up for with quantity. Never before have I seen someone say so much to say so little.
Culturologist said "You haven’t the slightest idea what I think about “the conflicts in the world” since I have said precisely nothing about them.".
And that epitomizes the poverty of your arugments and shows your inability to assess what's important and what isn't. You claim to know about morality but its clear you don't acutally have any.
80 posts in on a conversation on global morality and conflict and you can't see your way clear to make a single comment acknowledging the problem and make an attempt to address what to do about it. Contrary to your baseless assertion this tells me a great deal about what you think about the conflicts in the world.
You obviously place little priority on human suffering and are a heartless individual. You think the global situation is a "laugh riot" and are content to let millions be slaughtered because everything's fine with you and yours. You obviously value being thinking yourself as right over doing what's right. You're obviously more concerned with self a aggrandizement than the plight of millions of your fellow men. Altough you claim fairness and not hurting others is part of your morality you only pay lip service to these ideas.
Culturologist said "Ah, yes, Chicken Little, the sky is falling. And it’s been falling for a long time now. It was falling back during the ‘30s, and it was falling throughout the Cold War, and now it’s falling again. And yet somehow it hasn’t fallen, despite the clucking of the Chicken Littles from Canada and elsewhere. So now that Iran will have nuclear weapons, the sky is falling FOR REAL, huh?".
Yeah, go on moron, demonstrate your moral bankruptcy by trivializing the suffering and slaughter of millions. Only in your twisted mind is that not a case of the sky is falling. You can't see beyond your own back fence, you're willfully blind to what's going on in the world, joking about tragedy and heartlessly stating "That's the way things have worked in the world for a very long time, and there's no indication that it cannot go on in this state for a long time to come". Only a monster would be content to say its fine if the slaughters we've seen througout history go on for a long time to come. It says a lot about you, and none of it good, that you couldn't be bothered to address global conflicts and that you consider that situation fine and dandy. If you were half as smart as you falsely assert you are you'd have offered up some ideas for addressing this from your very first response to me bringing it up. But no, you'd rather engage in mental masturbation talking about your useless credentials than actually put them to the test to see if any good can come of them.
Culturologist said "[The Christian and Islamic fundamentalists are] crackpots doused in a kooky utopian ideology, just like you. Nonetheless, the vast majority of them seem perfectly content to live in the world up until the time Jesus or the Mahdi comes to get them....the Islamic world is not united, and that the divisions within it make it highly unlikely we’ll see any kind of concentrated Islamic imperial project throughout the globe."
Given a moron that pooh-poohs genocide no one has any confidence in your history denying guesses as to what the future won't bring. Milleniums of history have shown terrible human conflict on an every increasing scale that has mirrored the development of technology. Its time you got your head out of your insular books and looked at the big picture. Mankind has fought each other throughout history and there is no reason to believe this will stop unless we make some global changes in how we view each other. You've not offered a vision for any such changes, your simple mind can't see beyond "things have always worked this way, always will, and that's fine". The trouble is that technology gets ever cheaper and more prevalent and a future IS coming where nuclear weapons will be widely available. The Islamic world won't need to be universally united to wreak global havoc on groups like your pet Americans. Al Quaida has shown the ability to attack the U.S. and there's no reason to believe that they won't do so in the future at some point with nuclear weapons, unless we make some changes in global philosophies.
Technology is increasingly empowering small groups and that's only going to increase with time. The conflict between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq threatens to bring Iran and Saudia Arabia into the conflict on each side possibly resulting in a pan-arab war which would have much wider global implications than the present conflicts. A ten year old could see that your pollyanna assertions that history won't repeat itself with widescale conflict is hopelessly naive.
Culturologist said "So, forget about having to bone up on your history, understand colonialism, modernization, state-building, economic competition and conflict, and a host of other factors. It’s WAY easier to just make up a comic book GREAT SATAN.
That's the problem, you can't see the forest for the trees, get your head out of your butt and look at the world around you and its history. Conflict, terrible suffering and slaughter have been going on for millenia, thats no comic book, it isn't funny, its a situation that demands attention of all rational and decent people. You've ranted on and on about how great you're supposed to be and how stupid I'm supposed to be and have offered precisely nothing to address the greatest problems of our times. Its pretty clear who's the intelligent one and who isn't and I've got a hint for you, you obviously ain't so smart.
Next time rather than pooh-poohing wars and genocide how about you put your supposed intellect to the test and see if you can offer an bright suggestions as to how to stop it. You're happy to criticize but you're devoid of answers yourself, are all those education points of yours worth nothing? So it would seem.
You look at the genocide in Rwanda for example and tell me how the conservative morality pillers of ingroup loyalty and purity weren't a problem when Hutu and Tutsis were killing each other. You look at the genocide in the former Yugoslavia and tell me how in-group loyalty was a good thing when Christian's and Muslims were slaugtering each other. You look at the situation in Iraq and tell me how you'd defuse the conflict between shiite and sunni without casting aside your conservative "morality" pillers of "ingroup loyalty" and "purity".
You look at any of the conflicts in the past few decades and tell me how you justify not having said anything about preventing and resolving such conficts while inexplicably claiming to be an intelligent person.
Culturologist said "Do you have any children? Do you have a spouse? Do you have a mother or a father?".
I never said I was perfect, what I said was the only intelligent philosophy is to define the ideal situation so that we can then work towards coming as close to it as possible. Obviously I, like all people am imperfect and must fall short of the ideal of perfection that I espouse. I do my best to achieve goodness in the world and you obviously do not. You rant on and on about how smart and educated you are and yet with all your claimed depth you offer nothing to address global problems beyond, "its always been that way, don't worry, be happy". Any rational person knows change is needed and I suggest that and you suggest nothing. When it comes to competing with a high school dropout you're woefully inadequate.
Let's review just a bit of the insanity you represent as "intelligence". Earlier I made the statement "Society is made up of individuals, without individuals there is no society - that's the facts of life 101. "
Like the pointlessly educated clown you are you had the audacity to disagree with the obvious, saying "No, that's American individualist ideology 101. Consult some thinkers who have actually thought hard about this issue and you'll get a different answer.
Its time you actually opened your dictionary, society is a collection of individuals. Picture a world with no individuals and then tell me about the "society" that leaves behind. Let's see you defend that idea in a rational and logical way or admit for once you don't know what you're talking about.
I just want to add that I am grateful for Randi's contributions and have learned a lot from her. She's shared her personal story and her deep insights over the years here with refreshing candor and honesty. The world would be a better place with more Randis in it.
Wow, 82 entries and counting...I just got up from my nap (hey, I work graveyard...remember?), and I really don't know WHERE to begin.
Well, um...I do need to get my back bicycle tire flat fixed so I can ride my bicycle to work tonite. Wednesday was Bike to Work Day here in Colorado and I rode my bike, and on the way home I took a BIG nail in my back tire. I really should have seen it, but it was a light rain...so.
The title of this Blog is "The Morality of Liberals and Conservatives" and I am left with the impression from what Jim has written and responded to that Liberals are MORAL, while Conservatives are IMMORAL (as well as law breakers, liars, and corrupters of our form of government).
Or, in other words, Liberals are not only correct, but morally good folks. And Conservatives? Oh, they are not only wrong, but bad and evil as well.
Again, Jim writes,
The "culture wars" reflect an attempt by radical elements to remake the United States in their image, removing elementary Constitutional rights and institutionalizing bigotry and belligerence, to create a fundamentally different America based on authoritarianism and rejecting personal liberty.
This comment reflects such a limited, one-sided and biased understanding of American cultural and political history that I scarcely know where to begin...and I do need to get my bicycle fixed. I do think your "answer" to my comments though Jim show a limited understanding of the forces of action and reaction at work in American Society. Like I said, check out Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America...and once you finish Hunter's book you can give Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville.
Yeah, I didn't think I'd get much response to my pointing out how impossible in practice your hare-brained 'global morality' actually is. Just a pathetic 'I don't claim to be perfect.'
So precisely what *are* you contributing to changing the world? With your one-entry blog and your unlettered rants here to three people? Are you at least making yourself feel more efficacious and important?
I do more to change the world every time I step in the classroom than you will in your whole sad life. You see, what I do is show young people how to think and express themselves intelligently, so they don't wind up bitter, alienated high school dropout losers who claim to love everything and everybody and actually hate everything that exists with exactly the same ferocity and bovine stupidity as the religious extremists they claim to oppose. Those students write to me all the time after they have graduated and thank me for what they have learned from me.
You, meanwhile, sit in your isolation and screech about how imperfect the world is, and almost nobody (just AUnt Bea and Cartman) is listening, and you have essentially no effect on anything.
Well, good luck to you in your world-saving project. Try not to wind up in a nuthouse when you find out that the world doesn't really care very much about how you think it ought to be, and it will go right on just fine whether you are satisfied with it or not.
Tocqueville and Hunter, excellent suggestions. Nobody here will be interested in them, though. Book learnin' ain't thought of too highly in Mayberry, eh, AUnt Bea?
Culturologist:
If values come solely from culture, then it follows that these values must be relative, does it not?
Culturologist:
"Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be interpreted in terms of his or her own culture. This principle was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century."
-from wikipedia.org
How does this fit in with everything you have said here? It doesn't seem to fit, but I'm on the idiot's side of this argument, so my inability to "get it" shouldn't shock you ...
Thanks for proving my point culturologist, you're too small minded and heartless to care about global conflicts, war, and genocide. You're devoid of ideas despite all your pompous aggrandizement. You couldn't even deal with a single situation, like Rwanda and acknowledge that the pillers of your conservative morality, "ingroup loyalty" and "purity" were at the heart of the genocide involving Hutus and Tutsis not to mention various other genocides around the world.
For people in war torn areas the sky is falling and you consider that a "laugh riot" and such people "chicken littles". Your pathetic advice to the world is "don't worry, be happy" and "things have always worked this way and will for a long time to come". Tell that to the people losing loved ones, fearing death squads, abductions, assault, and bombs - I'm sure they'll be very comforted by your "credentials" and total lack of concern for your fellow man. Maybe you can suggest some books for them to read, yeah, not doubt that'll fix things up for them just dandy.
That you're supposedly a teacher is a joke, frankly I don't believe you, someone as pathetic as you most probably has made up all your claims. You've got a lot of growing up to do and its clear from the emptiness of what you've advanced here you have nothing to offer any students and no self-respecting university would have you on staff as the best you could do would be to taint young minds with your bigotry and take up time that could otherwise be used productively.
Your time here was one of the most shameful displays I've ever seen. You not only failed to acknowledge global conflict and place any importance on it, you bragged about how smart you were for doing so and being bereft of the slightest desire or suggestions for a solution. Yeah, only a moron like you would suggest that everything's fine the way it is. Its a tragedy that people like you can't see beyond your own selfish whims, the world certainly won't miss you when you're gone.
Its not surprising you have no solutions when you won't even acknowledge the problem - the cavemen morality of valuing in-group loyalty over fairness for all.
Orin, we're still waiting for an honest and serious answer:
How does allowing gays to marry keep men and women apart?
How does allowing gays to marry deprive any child of a father or a mother?
Don't you think its time you acknowledged that the positions you've taken are just dishonest rhetoric?
Randi rites,
Thanks for proving my point culturologist, you're too small minded and heartless to care about global conflicts, war, and genocide. You're devoid of ideas despite all your pompous aggrandizement. You couldn't even deal with a single situation, like Rwanda and acknowledge that the pillers of your conservative morality, "ingroup loyalty" and "purity" were at the heart of the genocide involving Hutus and Tutsis not to mention various other genocides around the world.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
So, let me get this "straight" - conservative ideas, principles, etc. were at the heart of the conflict between the Hutu and Tutsis?! Goodness, someone needs a reality check...sigh.
Randi rits,
That you're supposedly a teacher is a joke, frankly I don't believe you, someone as pathetic as you most probably has made up all your claims.
http://www.bucknell.edu/x18023.xml
Love to burst your bubble...he is an Associate Professor of Sociology. If am not mistaken, that is a tenured position, and for most academics, outside of the Ward Churchill's and other "Scholar Activist's" (here I am thinking of Howard Zinn et al), that is a very real accomplishment.
Well, I would love to chat more, but the Mrs. just walked thru the door, and she wants my full and complete attention.
Orin, we're still waiting for an honest and serious answer:
How does allowing gays to marry keep men and women apart?
How does allowing gays to marry deprive any child of a father or a mother?
Don't you think its time you acknowledged that the positions you've taken are just dishonest rhetoric?
Orin, if you think the values of "ingroup loyalty" and purity had nothing to do with the genocide in Rwanda or the former Yugoslavia you need a reality check. Those people didn't slaughter each other because they were too similar.
Since our putative professor was too cowardly and heartless to address the issue of what to do about global conflicts perhaps you'd like to give it a stab.
Oh, sure, Ward, things are more complex than they seem. They always are.
We do things the way we do them because that's the way we do them, no deeper justification than that, see WIttgenstein, Hume, or Nietzsche for that matter.
Doesn't mean we don't get REALLY attached to doing them that way and fight hard to keep other people from imposing their way of doing things on us.
See, cultural relativism doesn't mean we have to wind up in a wishy washy utopian no-place like in Ms. Schimnosky's case, because we all of us are standing somewhere, and wherever that happens to be is the best place to stand...for us.
It doesn't bother me in the slightest if the Bangladeshis think where they stand is the best place--I can intellectually agree that it is...for them.
But I don't want to stand where they stand, and they likely don't want my place either. And I will roundly reject the idea that I should be forced to stand where they stand, or tolerate the imposition of their stance in the public sphere in my culture where it can influence my children and the children of others in ways I don't care to have them influenced. More, beyond intellectual curiosity, I don't really have any personal investment at all in how or where they stand. That's THEIR business, as where I stand is mine.
The same perspective can be put to work within our culture too, with some clear differences.
The homosexuals for example are by the traditional cultural norms we hold dear free to establish their own subcultural way of doing at least some things, so long as they don't come into radical conflict with key traditional cultural norms of the broader social group to which they belong.
But, as they are a tiny minority within that larger culture, they simply have to recognize that they'll be forcibly restricted in their 'rights' and 'freedoms' when what they want to do causes demonstrable harm to the broader cultural fabric. David Blankenhorn has made perhaps the best case as to precisely how e.g., same sex 'marriage' would do just that. So we can be cultural relativists and still find (cultural) reasons to oppose same sex 'marriage.'
It so happens with homosexuality that we are not dealing only in the realm of cultural values, but in the realm of the structure and function of the human organism too. It's not very hard to figure out why no cultures prior to the few in the WEst today that do so have recognized same sex 'unions' as fulfilling the institutional imperatives of marriage--the reproductive machinery of the body is pretty clearly about the need for male and female unions for species reproduction.
It was THIS particular relation that became institutionalized EVERYWHERE (though in monogamous form in some places, in polygynous forms elsewhere, and even in polyandrous forms in a very few places) because this was what was functional for ALL existing societies. It's only in societies like ours, where notions of individual freedoms have become so prominent (and even pathologically so in many cases), that it can even be seriously suggested (by some people at least) that two men or two women can reasonably be seen as capable of participation in the institution.
Protctologist, you had nothing to offer but adhominems and empty bragging, where's your suggestions for addressing the conflicts of the world we're doomed to repeat if changes aren't made? Are you just going to rest on your pollyanna attitude that, LOL, "things have worked this way for a long time and will continue to for a long time to come"?
Clearly all your bogus credentials are totally worthless in terms of providing ideas for making the world a better place.
Proctologist said "as they are a tiny minority within that larger culture, they simply have to recognize that they'll be forcibly restricted in their 'rights' and 'freedoms' when what they want to do causes demonstrable harm to the broader cultural fabric. David Blankenhorn has made perhaps the best case as to precisely how e.g., same sex 'marriage' would do just that.".
Gay couples getting married does not cause "demonstrable harm". In no way does the gay couple down the street getting married affect any heterosexual realtionship in the slightest, the notion is absurd on the face of it. It is by definition immoral to interfere in the marriage of a gay couple as that harmes no one. The essence of morality is "Do whatever you want but harm no one".
Blankenhorn most certainly hasn't made a serious case against equal marriage for same sex couples:
http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/31230.html
"Blankenhorn notes that there is a correlation between non-traditional beliefs about marriage and support for gay marriage. He claims this allows us to “infer” a “likely causal relation” between gay marriage and anti-marriage views.
But by itself a correlation doesn’t prove that one thing caused another. People who buy ashtrays are more likely to get lung cancer -- but this doesn’t prove that buying ashtrays causes lung cancer. If we relied on correlation alone, we’d think all sorts of crazy things were causally related.
Consider what can be done with a correlation used to “infer” a “likely causal relation.” People in countries without same-sex marriage are more likely to believe women should stay at home and not work, that men should be masters of their households, that there should be no separation of church and state, that people should not use contraception when they have sex, and that divorce should never be permitted. If these correlations exist, have I demonstrated the existence of a “cluster of beliefs” that reinforce one another, undermining the argument against gay marriage?
Or consider the more sympathetic correlations to gay marriage that Blankenhorn ignores. Countries with SSM are richer, healthier, more democratic, more educated, and more respectful of individual rights. Have I shown that the absence of gay marriage is likely causing harm in those benighted countries that refuse to recognize it?
Here’s another correlation helpful to the case for gay marriage: countries with gay marriage are enjoying higher marriage rates since they recognized it. Have I shown that gay marriage likely caused this?
Even Blankenhorn’s correlation is suspect. Non-traditional attitudes about marriage preceded the recognition of gay marriage in the countries that have it. How could gay marriage have caused a decline in traditional marital attitudes before it even existed?
Of course, Blankenhorn is still free to argue that non-traditional attitudes greased the way for gay marriage, but this doesn’t show that it caused or even reinforced non-traditional attitudes. What Blankenhorn needs, even as a starting point, is some evidence that non-traditionalist views increased after gay marriage began. He doesn’t have that."
Proctologist said "It so happens with homosexuality that we are not dealing only in the realm of cultural values, but in the realm of the structure and function of the human organism too. It's not very hard to figure out why no cultures prior to the few in the WEst today that do so have recognized same sex 'unions' as fulfilling the institutional imperatives of marriage--the reproductive machinery of the body is pretty clearly about the need for male and female unions for species reproduction.".
Horsefeathers, people own their bodies and do with them as the wish as long as they are not hurting others. No one is under any moral obligation to use their body according to the whims of others whether those others be the majority or not. Its long been known that reproduction is not an obligation of marriage, if it were infertile couples and those who choose not to have children would be barred from marriage.
In any event 30% of gay couples have children and as social conservatives rant about the benefits of marriage to children it is hypocritical of them (not that this is any surprise) to bar the children of gay couples from having the protections and benefits of two married parents.
In socially advanced just societies like Canada people like you are "forcibly restricted in your 'rights' and 'freedoms' when what you want to do causes demonstrable harm" to any individual, including gays. Preventing the loving union of same sex couples harms them and is by definition immoral. Its obvious the sky hasn't fallen in those countries allowing equal marriage for same sex couples - so much for your nebulous chicken little warnings that it will.
Its incredibly ironic that you magically see nonexistant danger in gay unions yet you have no concern for genocide, war and conflict. Clearly to you a few million people being slaughtered isn't anywhere near as threatening as a gay couple getting married. Just shows how wacked your priorities and values are.
I wasn't talking to you, insane person. I was addressing Ward. I'm done responding to barking dogs.
And further to culturologists statement "It's not very hard to figure out why no cultures prior to the few in the WEst today that do so have recognized same sex 'unions'" I offer Gary Leupp's comments:
"First I recommend you read John Boswell's fine book Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press, 1980), in which he documents legally recognized homosexual marriage in ancient Rome extending into the Christian period, and his Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (Villard Books, 1994), in which he discusses Church-blessed same-sex unions and even an ancient Christian same-sex nuptial liturgy. Then check out my Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan (University of California Press, 1995) in which I describe the "brotherhood-bonds" between samurai males, involving written contracts and sometimes severe punishments for infidelity, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Check out the literature on the Azande of the southern Sudan, where for centuries warriors bonded, in all legitimacy, with "boy-wives." Or read Marjorie Topley's study of lesbian marriages in Guangdong, China into the early twentieth century. Check out Yale law professor William Eskridge's The Case for Same-Sex Marriage (1996), and other of this scholar's works, replete with many historical examples.".
Just as I thought your claim to be a socioligist professer is bogus. Your ignorance of the social history of gay unions betrays you. Once again the high school dropout's intellect is superior to the supposed professor.
Just where did I ever claim to be a "socioligist professer"? Not me! I have never even been a professer of socioligy. I never claimed to know anything at all about socioligy, or psycholigy, or philosiphy either. Nope, no professering for me, thanks!
Boswell's work (he died of AIDS btw in his mid-40s, and so of course the homosexual lobby has tried to turn him into some kind of saint in the gay liberation pantheon) has been roundly criticized as thoroughly partisan and undependable by all but the most ideologically corrupted 'scholars'; he deliberately mistranslated terms to get the reading of ancient texts he wanted, the typical tactic of the ideologue.
Sorry, you wouldn't know any of that because you don't read anything, but this is WIDELY known by everybody who does read this literature. I'm sure you can even find some of the evidence via your 'research technique' of googling.
And sorry again, but none of those other examples are same sex marriages either. They are all examples of mere rite of passage or situationally-specific (i.e., as part of military service) homosexuality. In none of them did same sex partners stay together for the remainder of their lives, raise families, get recognized as equal in kind to actual marriages, etc.
As usual, you are shrill and vapid. Do you read anything except stuff you find on the Internet? Do you read even THAT? Have you even LOOKED at any of those sources you just cited, to see if they actually make the case you think they make? I'd bet my next paycheck you haven't. YOu probably don't even have access to a real library, do you?
But why read when you can just google a phrase and cut and paste the first thing you find that looks supportive of what you believe? The standard research skills here in Mayberry! Boy, it is scary that people like you probably vote.
I think I'll call you 'Otis' from now on. The Mayberry town drunk. Is that OK with you, Otis?
Homosexuality certainly has existed in many, if not most historic societies. People with a little bit of nuanced thinking ability can however see the difference between the sanctioning of ephemeral and transitional homosexual liaisons in some limited situations (classical Greece is another example) and the full-on institutionalization of same sex marriage and family units. In other words, I'm sure you can't.
OK, NOW I promise, Otis, no more talking to you. Get in the cell and sleep it off. Barney will let you out in the morning, and Aunt Bea will bring some nice muffins.
Randi writes,
Orin, if you think the values of "ingroup loyalty" and purity had nothing to do with the genocide in Rwanda or the former Yugoslavia you need a reality check. Those people didn't slaughter each other because they were too similar.
Ok, call me naive, call me an idiot, heck, you can even say that I am woefully out of touch with reality...that is all ok.
Whether in Yugoslavia or Rwanda, one group did terrible, evil things to "the Other" because they failed to see in that "Other" their own image.
Since our putative professor was too cowardly and heartless to address the issue of what to do about global conflicts perhaps you'd like to give it a stab.
Solzhenitsyn had this observation with regards to evil,
If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them.
But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being, and who is willing to destroy his own heart?
Yugoslavia and Rwanda, two countries you seem to be fixated upon, are just a small sampling of conflicts found in every corner of this world. There is no escaping that fact.
What to do about it? Good question, though I would suggest that it starts on the smallest of all scales, the human heart.
There is this song that might have a kernel or two of wisdom in it,
LET THERE BE PEACE ON EARTH
Let there be peace on earth,
and let it begin with me.
Let there be peace on Earth,
the peace that was meant to be.
With God as our Father,
brothers all are we,
Let me walk with my brother,
in perfect harmony.
Let peace begin with me,
let this be the moment now.
With every step I take,
let this be my solemn vow,
To take each moment and live each moment in peace, eternally.
Let there be Peace on Earth,
and let it begin with me.
I know, I know...pretty naive. I cannot change the whole world, but I can teach by word and example to my two daughters this simple truth:
God demands one thing above all others: goodness, and that being good is not enough, we must do good in order to make this world a better place. Everything else is commentary, IMO.
A liberal friend of mine (also gay) sent me something this gal wrote, and then in the process of trying to find the link, I came across this,
"Loosen Up, Even if You Don't Agree"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com
/id/6409650/site/newsweek/
no cultures prior to the few in the WEst today that do so have recognized same sex 'unions' as fulfilling the institutional imperatives of marriage...only in societies like ours, where notions of individual freedoms have become so prominent (and even pathologically so in many cases), that it can even be seriously suggested (by some people at least) that two men or two women can reasonably be seen as capable of participation in the institution.
Same-sex unions have occured in many cultures at various times throughout history. Some were short lived but your assertion that In none of them did same sex partners stay together for the remainder of their lives, raise families, get recognized as equal in kind to actual marriages, is wrong. Sorry, I don't have access to a "real" library this morning so Wikipedia will have to suffice: Same-sex marriage has been documented in many societies that were not subject to Christian influence. In North America, among the Native Americans societies, it has taken the form of Two-Spirit-type relationships, in which some male members of the tribe, from an early age, heed a calling to take on female gender with all its responsibilities. They are prized as wives by the other men in the tribe, who enter into formal marriages with these Two-Spirit men.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions#North_America
Book learnin' ain't thought of too highly in Mayberry, eh, AUnt Bea?
You might want to spend some time thinking about how many more people in this world, particularly in America, are living in NASCAR lovin' places like Mayberry compared to your book learnin' ivory tower. Your statement here, taken with some others, such as
all the students I see have high school diplomas. That is, all of them are better prepared for intellectual interaction than Ms. Schimnosky.
Right, high school dropout. That's just about what I imagined.
at the school where I teach, the GED would generally not put you in good standing as an applicant
seem to indicate that you have a deep-seated contempt for people with fewer academic credentials and less "book learnin' " than you. I hope you don't give that impression to your students. You've repeatedly insulted regular commenters who have responded in kind and I wish like Orin apparently does that everybody would stop.
Thanks for the song and the Hillel quote, Orin. Since it might be helpful here, the full quote is, "What is hateful to you do not do to others, this is the entire Torah, everything else is commentary."
Culturologist this makes the third time you've promissed to stop talking to me, why don't you do us all a favour, live up to at least one of your promises, go away, and spare us your bigotry.
Your unsupported attacks on Boswell don't impress anyone and your baseless assertion that none of these same sex couples stayed together for the rest of their lives is absurd on the face of it, many gay couples have spent their lives together throughout history and the idea that all these relationships should be exceptional in not being the same isn't believable in the slightest.
Once again, your moral bankruptcy is demonstrated by your cavalier attitude that genocide is no threat to society but that gays getting married is. Your bigotry, immorality, and ignorance couldn't be more apparent.
Orin said "Whether in Yugoslavia or Rwanda, one group did terrible, evil things to "the Other" because they failed to see in that "Other" their own image.".
ORIN, that's exactly what I said and you LOL'd at it! Valuing the conservative pillers of "ingroup loyalty" and "purity" is a matter of failing to see in the "other" your own image. That's at the heart of the conflicts in the world and its tragic that people like the mad professor refuse to see that. No doubt that's why he refused to offer his own opinions on how to address such conflicts, he knew deep down in his heart that he'd have to come to the same conclusions that you and I did and he couldn't bear to admit that I was right.
Orin said "God demands one thing above all others: goodness, and that being good is not enough, we must do good in order to make this world a better place."
Imaginary beings can't make demands but that is demanded, not by god, but by our desire and need to live in the best world possible. I'm glad to see us on the same page for a change.
Now Orin, for the umpteenth time, How does allowing gay couples to marry keep men and women apart?
How does allowing gay couples to marry deprive children of a father or a mother?
Maybe you can answer if you try and see gays in YOUR own image as you've claimed is important to do.
Aunt Bea writes,
I just want to add that I am grateful for Randi's contributions and have learned a lot from her. She's shared her personal story and her deep insights over the years here with refreshing candor and honesty. The world would be a better place with more Randis in it.
And then not too much later you write,
You've repeatedly insulted regular commenters who have responded in kind and I wish like Orin apparently does that everybody would stop.
And I'll have to admit that your admiration for Randi's "refreshing candor and honesty" have me more than a little puzzled. Still more puzzling is this,
The world would be a better place with more Randis in it.
Now, don't get me wrong here; I enjoy a good debate, but I can't remember the last time someone called me the number of names that Randi has...not ever, really. I put up with it because I don't take political disagreements personally (heck, my oldest sib, and my mentor in so many ways, is as liberal as I am conservative...go figure), because I entered this forum and because I have a couple of teenagers that regularly test my patience, and with each "test" I get a little more patient.
Randi writes,
Your unsupported attacks on Boswell don't impress anyone
My impression of Boswell is that nobody outside of those engaged in gay/lesbian advocacy put much stock in his magnum opus.
And then, for who knows how many times, Randi asks,
How does allowing gay couples to marry keep men and women apart?
Now, looking back over the exchanges I can see how I have tried time and again to answer this question, but apparently not to your satisfaction.
So, before my 13 year old comes down the stairs and kicks me off the computer, I will try once again.
Allowing two men or two women to get "married" does violence to the public understanding of what marriage means - the union of one man and one woman. Now, I realize that increasingly some are confused about what marriage means, but that does not mean that marriage should not be defended for what it uniquely offers society...oh, I have to make way for the 13 year old.
More, I am sure, later...
Wikipedia won't cut it, Aunt Bea. Any dolt (like you, or Otis) can post information there. There is no quality check, there is no expertise that can be verified, there is nothing but 'intellectual democracy,' which is a contradiction in terms. We don't all get to have an opinion on matters of research.
So rather than waste your time with the non-information on wikipedia, I would suggest you go actually read some books by people who have actually demonstrated some expertise in a field.
Orin's point is a good one. Your dishonesty is patently obvious, Aunty. You don't want insults, when they are coming from people you ideologically disagree with, but they are 'admirable' when they come from the beloved town drunk Otis. Think about it. Think REALLY hard about it. Then think some more about it.
That you think *I* started the insults is laughable. Read the transcript, AUnty Bea. Look at how Cartman the Anonymous Coward began the descent with "Cultproctologist" and Otis the Town Drunk followed up with "Proctologist." The sole "insult" I had offered either of them before that was to suggest that they think harder about topics they had just revealed they didn't very well understand, or to simply make factual statements about biographical points THEY had offered ('high school dropout'). Intolerable, that, apparently.
This is the problem with Mayberry, AUnt Bea. Not that it exists, certainly. It's certainly true that not everywhere is the university. But the problem we have today is that the Mayberrys, and the AUnt Beas and Otis the Drunks who live in them, believe that because they have access to the Internet and can wikipedia things and find some piece of stupidity that some uneducated buffoon has written on a topic, they now automatically and regardless of the actual content of what they say have the same intellectual expertise and weight as people who spend their lives reading and writing in a scholarly world on those topics.
It's called the crumbling of standards. Uninformed and uneducated people who don't understand that they are uninformed and uneducated and resent it when people who are not uninformed and uneducated refuse to avoid seeing the obvious. People who genuinely can't see that a dictionary definition of 'society' is not useful in a discussion of how that word is used as a precise conceptual category in the social sciences (this is something that university students learn in their first semester, right along with the rules regarding plagiarism) taking themselves as thoughtful interlocutors. People who are so dense that they cannot understand that the existence of scattered homosexual couplings that are unrecognized by the larger culture (that are indeed in most cases kept hidden from the larger culture) does not 'prove' that there exist societies that have institutionally sanctioned and recognized homosexual unions/marriage accusing experts of ignorance. The list could go on and on.
Don't worry your dainty head, AUnt Bea, I have no reason to treat my students with the contempt with which I treat Otis and Cartman. My students are by and large intelligent young people who understand the limits of their knowledge and are actually (gasp) eager to learn from experts. Some of them are perhaps from Mayberry, but they recognize that Mayberry's front porch bullshittin' has to stay in Mayberry and has no value in the university.
They know they have to learn intellectual discourse and they know they have to inform themselves about topics before they get up on soapboxes and shout self-righteously at others if they want to avoid being seen as town drunks or worse.
It is certainly the case that intelligent and thoughtful people who disagree with me on just about everything exist, and I interact with them frequently, and we disagree and the tone is quite cordial.
But I am not a Christian. And so when people who are obviously dolts and extremists call me names in response to my suggestion that they haven't thought hard about something, I haven't the slightest problem responding in kind. Not the SLIGHTEST.
The WIkipedia writer Aunt Bea cites is as confused as Otis. "Many societies" have purportedly had same sex marriage--then we get ONE example, which is in fact a non-example.
Native American 'two spiritism' is NOT homosexual in their view, as culturally they see those biological men as WOMEN inhabiting men's bodies (hence, two spirits).
The idea of two men 'marrying' would be seen as an outrage in these societies, and the very few men who have 'two spirit' wives also have female wives with whom they can perform the social function the 'two spirit' wives can obviously never fulfill.
In other words, the institution of marriage in those societies is no different than in our own structurally. Men marry women. Period.
To suggest these groups practiced homosexual marriage is to try to plug the homosexual lobby's terms in to a practice that has nothing to do with them.
OK, Orin. You are perplexed by my view about more Randis in the world and I am perplexed by your view that marriage equality would keep straights from marrying each other and kids from having two (or more) loving parents. OK, we're both perplexed.
I'm not pleased that discussions sometimes become so heated that names and worse get thrown out when perhaps counting to 10 first would be better idea. And I'll even admit, in the heat of some arguments I've been guilty of such errors -- you'll remember "Opie" no doubt, and also that I stopped calling you that when you asked. While I'm fessing up, here's another admission: I am the one who (hurriedly and anonymously) put up the question about special education above on this thread.
You told us back in January that you had been placed in special education classes and no one that I'm aware of has ever ridiculed you for that here. Randi has been similarly open about her personal experiences, but compare how she's been treated. Anon regularly refers to her as the wrong gender and note that on this thread, she has been incessantly attacked by the new kid on the block after she admitted she dropped out of high school. I think her anger is understandable. Like you I try to be patient and look beyond the anger.
Underneath that anger, I see that Randi hopes and advocates for this world to be ruled by only the Golden Rule just like Hillel (the rest is commentary). IMHO if more people had similar goals, this world would be a better place.
Aunt Bea yodelled: "your view that marriage equality would keep straights from marrying each other and kids from having two (or more) loving parents. "
I doubt Orin has made the claim that same sex marriage will keep heterosexuals from marrying. No one has ever made that claim in any of the myriad places that I've taken part in this debate, although I see it FREQUENTLY presented by the other side as their confused (or deliberately misrepresented) vision of what those evil 'conservatives' are arguing. If you can't even bother to correctly understand what people on the other side are saying, you are handicapping your ability to argue effectively from the start.
On the point of parenting: ALL the data on family structure and child achievement point in the same direction: children do best when they are in a family with their BIOLOGICAL MOTHER AND BIOLOGICAL FATHER. I have spent a lot of time poring over the literature on this and have found no suggestion to the contrary.
Even committed feminist sociologists (I should rather say "HONEST feminist sociologists" as there are still a few lying ideologues out there who will not accept the facts) like Sara McClanahan, who initially started doing research on family outcomes in order to try to show that kids in other kinds of families were NOT comparatively disadvantaged, have found that the data show that the biological Mom and Dad model is the best, even when you control for income and other variables. This is old news.
Note this does not mean that all kids from e.g., single parent homes or homosexual homes wind up in the gutter. But it DOES mean that the *ideal* (Otis claims to be REALLY interested in such things) familial form for children is biological mom and biological dad.
So why wouldn't we want to protect that IDEAL familial form as privileged and preferred?
Unless we're willing to perform social experiments with our kids, that is. 'We don't really know how things will turn out, but let's change the family all around and see what happens to kids.' That's the end result of the same sex marriage proposition, as well as the loud lobby for single parenthood and other 'alternative families.'
I go with the kid's interests over the interests of the two narcissistic guys who think the fact that they are really into anally penetrating one another means the rest of the culture has to institutionally recognize their 'union.' They are free to do whatever they'd like with one another in their homes, but they (all 3% or so of the population of them) are not free to remake American culture in their image.
Orin said "My impression of Boswell is that nobody outside of those engaged in gay/lesbian advocacy put much stock in his magnum opus.".
Your's and the Proctologist's impression really don't mean anything. He's done the research and neither of you has. He's in a position to know and neither of you are.
The liturgy documented by Boswell has the two men vowing to love each other for all of their lives and sealing it with a kiss. Obviously this is not a "right of passage" or a temporary union, its a wedding for life.
Eusebius of Caesarea, wrote that "Among the Gauls, the young men marry each other (gamountai) with complete freedom. In doing this, they do not incur any reproach or blame, since this is done according to custom amongst them." Bardaisan of Edessa wrote that "In the countries of the north — in the lands of the Germans and those of their neighbors, handsome [noble] young men assume the role of wives [women] towards other men, and they celebrate marriage feasts."
Clearly the proctologist is full of it (fittingly) when he lies and says no cultures celebrated same sex marriages.
Obviously history doesn't record everything and the idea that it would have never occurred to people to marry loving gay couples and for them to have not done so is beyond belief. In ancient times people weren't controled by computer tracked marriage licences and if someone could conceive of marrying gays someone would certainly have done it and there is no doubt that the very idea did cross many people's minds. There is no doubt that the marriages documented by Eusebius weren't the only ones to occur and only a fool like the mad professor would believe that just because history didn't record something that it didn't happen.
History is recorded by the victors and the popular ones and it is to be expected that the history of an often despised minority is often overlooked and there is a long history of the suppression of gay history which means absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence as the proctologist would know if he had learned anything of value in his books or university.
And the proctologist doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to two-spirit people. It doesn't refer to a woman trapped in a man's body, it refers to the idea that the person has both male and female spirits in him and as such is spiritually gifted as a bridge between the sexes. His insane assertion that such cultures would have been outraged by two men marrying is disproven by the fact that such two-spirited people did in fact marry men and they weren't always second wives.
Proctologist said "I doubt Orin has made the claim that same sex marriage will keep heterosexuals from marrying".
Once again your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance. In this thread:
http://www.teachthefacts.org/2007/05/gallup-this-is-good-news.html
at May 29, 2007 1:00 PM
Orin said "ANYTHING that keeps a man and woman separated, be it a ban on inter-racial couples, or same-sex marriage, should be resisted.".
Now Orin hysterically shrieks "Allowing two men or two women to get "married" does violence to the public understanding of what marriage means - the union of one man and one woman.".
Enough of the hyperbole Orin, one can't do violence to a word Orin and even once gays get the right to marry over 95% of the time when people hear of a marriage it will be exactly the same sort of marriage its always been - that's a trivial change to the meaning of the word if anything. Now tell me step by step how this trivial change to the word is going to keep men and women apart - you still haven't answered the question.
Proctologist blathers on about heterosexual parents being the ideal and lies about the what the research shows. The APA has gathered a wealth of studies that all show children of gay parents do as well as children of heterosexual parents. The APA decidedly disagrees with the proctologist, to quote:
[T]here is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or 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."
Just a few of the articles demonstrating the equality of gay and lesbian parents:
"The Lesbian Mother," by Bernice Goodman [American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
Vol. 43 (1983), pp. 283-284]
Kirkpatrick, Martha et al; "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparative
Study," 51 American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 545 (1983) "Homosexual Parents,"
by Brenda Maddox [Psychology Today, February, 1982, pp.66-69]
Riddle, Dorothy I.; "Relating to Children: Gays as Role Models," 34 Journal of
Social Issues, 38-58 (1978)
"The Avowed Lesbian Mother and Her Right to Child Custody," by Marilyn Riley,
San Diego Law Review, Vol. 12 (1975), p. 799]
Susoeff, Steve; "Assessing Children's Best Interests When a Parent is Gay or
Lesbian: Toward a Rational Custody Standard," 32 UCLA Law Review 852, 896 (1985)
Gibbs, Elizabeth D.; "Psychosocial Development of Children Raised by Lesbian
Mothers: A Review of Research," 8 Women & Therapy 65 (1988)
Green, Richard; "The Best Interests of the Child With a Lesbian Mother," 10
Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & Law 7 (1982)
Turner, Pauline et al; "Parenting in Gay and Lesbian Families," 1 Journal of Gay
& Lesbian Psychotherapy 55, 57 (1990)
Golombok, Susan; "Children in Lesbian and Single-Parent Households: Psychosexual
and Psychiatric Appraisal," 24 Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry 551
(1983)
Hoeffer, Beverly; "Children's Acquisition of Sex-Role Behavior in Lesbian-Mother
Families," 51 American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 536 (1981)
Green, Richard; "Sexual Identity of 37 Children Raised by Homosexual or
Transsexual Parents," 135 American Journal of Psychiatry 692 (1978)
Green, Richard; "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparison with Solo
Parent Heterosexual Mothers and their Children," 15 Archives of Sexual Behavior
167 (1986)
Gottman, Julie Schwartz; "Children of Gay and Lesbian Parents," 14 Marriage and
Family Review 177 (1989)
Rees, Richard; "A Comparison of Children of Lesbian and Single Heterosexual
Mothers on Three Measures of Socialization," 40 Dissertation Abstracts
International 3418-B, 3419-B (1979)
Sterkel, Alisa; "Psychosocial Develpment of Children of Lesbian Mothers," Gay &
Lesbian Parents 75, 81 (Frederick W. Bozett, ed., 1987)
Mucklow, Bonnie M., & Phelan, Gladys K.; "Lesbian and Traditional Mothers'
Responses to Adult Response to Child Behavior and Self-Concept," 44
Psychological Report 880 (1979)
Whittlin, William A.; "Homosexuality and Child Custody: A Psychiatric
Viewpoint," 21 Concilation Courts Review 77 (1983)
Herek, Gregory M.; "Myths About Sexual Orientation: A Lawyer's Guide to Social
Science Research," 1 Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 133
(1991)
Cramer, David; "Gay Parents and Their Children: A Review of the Research and
Practical Implications," 64 Journal of Counseling & Development 504 (1986)
Wismont, Judith M., & Reame, Nancy E.; "The Lesbian Childbearing Experience:
Assessing Developmental Tasks, 21 Journal of Nursing Scholarship 137 (1989)
Meyer, Cheryl L.; "Legal, Psychological, and Medical Considerations in Lesbian
Parenting," 2 Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 237 (1992)
"In the 'Best Interests of the Child' and the Lesbian Mother: A Proposal for
Legislative Change in New York," 48 Albany Law Review 1021 (1984) Harris &
Turner, "Gay & Lesbian Parents," 12 Journal of Homosexuality 101 (1985-1986)
Kleber, Howell & Tibbits-Kleber, "The Impact of Parental Homosexuality in Child
Custody Cases: A Review of the Literature," 14 Bulletin of the American Academy
of Psychiatry & Law 81 (1986)
"The Avowed Lesbian Mother and Her Right to Child Custody: A Constitutional
Challenge That Can No Longer Be Denied," 12 San Diego Law Review 799 (1975)
"Sexual Orientation and the Law" by the Editors of the Harvard Law Review
(Harvard University Press, 1989)
Green, G. Dorsey, & Bozett, Frederick W., "Lesbian Mothers and Gay Fathers," in
Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, ed. by Gonsiorek &
Weinrich (Sage Publications, 1991)
Lewin, E., "Lesbianism and Motherhood: Implications for Child Custody," 40 Human
Organization 6-14 (1981)
Ricketts, Wendell; "Lesbians and Gay Men as Foster Parents" (University of
Southern Maine, 1992)
You can find many additional citations in this bibliography:
"Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: Annotated Bibliography of Legal and
Psychological Materials," by Donna J. Hitchens and Ann G. Thomas, editors [San
Francisco Lesbian Rights Project]
These studies, reports, and articles all reach the same conclusion: Children raised by lesbians
and gay men do not differ from children raised by heterosexuals "on measures of popularity,
social adjustment, gender role behavior, gender identity, intelligence, self-concept, emotional
problems, interest in marriage and parenting, locus of control, moral development, independence,
ego functions, object relations, or self esteem." Additionally, no significant differences have
been observed in regard to "teachers' and parents' evaluations of emotional and social behavior,
fears, sleep disturbances, hyperactivity, and conduct differences." (Meyer, "Legal,
Psychological, and Medical Considerations in Lesbian Parenting," 2 Law & Sexuality: Rev. Lesbian
& Gay Legal Issues 239-240 [1992])
The same article goes on to note that a very few differences HAVE beenreported by some
researchers: One study found children raised by heterosexual mothers had a HIGHER rate of
psychiatric disorders and psychiatric referrals than those raised by lesbians. Another study
found that those raised by heterosexuals were more domineering and more often engaged in power
struggles. Other studies found that children of lesbian parents showed greater tolerance for
diversity and that daughters of lesbians chose to play with opposite sex partners more often
than daughters of heterosexual mothers.
Citations showing that children of gay parents are no more likely to grow up
gay:
Golombok, Spencer, & Rutter, Children in Lesbian and Single-Parent Households:
Psychosexual and Psychiatric Appraisal, 24, J. Child Psychology and Psychiatry
551, 568 (1983)
Green, The Best Interests of a Child with a Lesbian Mother, 10 Bull. Am. Acad.
Psychiatry and Law, 7, 13, (1982)
Green, Mandel, Hotveldt, Gray, & Smith, Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A
Comparison with Solo Parent Heterosexual Mothers and Their Children, 15 Archives
Sexual Behav., 167, 181 (1986)
Kirkpatrick, Smith, and Roy, Lesbian Mothers and their Children: A Comparative
Survey, 51 Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 545, 551 (1981)
Bozett, Children of Gay Fathers, in Gay and Lesbian Parents, F. Bozett ed.
(1987)
As is a typical lie for a social conservative the mad professor tries to pass off studies that compare two heterosexual parents to single parents as showing that gay parents are not ideal when such studies don't even look at gay parents.
Proctologist said "That you think *I* started the insults is laughable". What's laughable is that your arrogance makes you think you can lie when the evidence is for all to see on this very thread. At June 27, 2007 7:17 PM you started the name calling (the insults to my intelligence came much earlier) by calling me "Chicken little". You continued your downward slide at June 27, 2007 7:38 PM when you said "Ms. Schimnosky and her anonymous friend (who is perhaps Ms. Schimnosky herself, endeavoring to make it look as though there is a chorus of fools here rather than just her)".
You couldn't compete on an intellectual basis so you had to start with the ad-hominems.
Once again I challange you "smart" guy, acknowledge that global conflicts are not a good thing to be ignored and let's see your ideas for diminishing them and making the world a better place, or are those "credentials" of yours as worthless as they've been up to this point.
Coherence is not your strong suit, is it, Otis? Just throwing a bunch of citations out isn't making a case, especially when many of them by their titles alone clearly cannot have much to say about comparative outcomes of different familial structures--what do you think articles in e.g., law reviews on child custody cases and homosexuality have to say about this? But then, you wouldn't know, because it's a certainty that you haven't actually read even one of the sources you cut and pasted from somewhere on the Internet. That wouldn't be your style, would it? You already know the truth, so no need to learn anything. Ideologies are good that way.
All the efforts to gather together existing research on the topic and evaluate it as a whole agree with what I already said. Finding a study here or there that makes some seemingly contrary point doesn't negate that fact--especially when you have said NOTHING about the content of any of the citations you cut and pasted (again, I understand you didn't do this because you haven't read them and you probably wouldn't understand them even if you tried to read them, so summary of them would be an impossibility).
You probably don't understand that reasoning--that a SUMMARY and COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS of existing research is generally more wide-ranging in its impact, and more reliable, than any single piece of research that might be included in the summary--but it doesn't make it less true.
David Popenoe has written several books and many articles evaluating the existing evidence on family structure and child outcomes and he shows pretty clearly that biological Mom and Dad model does better than all other models--not just better than single parent models, but better than all other models. I'd advise you to have a look over his work.
Blankenhorn has also looked over a lot of this research and analyzed it in summary fasion. But of course you won't bother to read and understand the several books he's written on this topic because some fool on the Independent Gay Forum wrote a dopey one-page 'rebuttal' that reveals most basically only that the Independent Gay Forum idiot doesn't know very much about how social scientists think these days about causality and correlation.
Even the Judith Stacey study of a few years back that looked at the question and later essentially admitted that the results were spun politically because of a perceived need to be as homosexual-friendly as possible demonstrated negative differences of homosexual families. Namely, that kids in those families were more likely to identify as sexually ambiguous or homosexual--and indeed any rational person would wonder how we could expect otherwise if we accept the fact that sexual and gender identity is at least partially environmentally produced (which even the APA admits).
What this means demographically is that those kids were more likely to become members of a subpopulation that has higher rates of suicide, drug addiction, alcoholism, STDs, and numerous other pathologies than heterosexual people. That's a disadvantage in any sane person's world. (and incidentally, though the homosexual lobby has claimed over and over that those negative facts are all about the prejudice homosexuals suffer and not anything about them, recent research in the most liberal European environments for homosexuals has indicated that EVEN THERE they have higher suicide rates, higher drug abuse rates, etc.)
I see your take on Boswell's flimsy case has the same intellectual rigor I've grown to expect from you--you think he's right because...well, heck, there's been a lot of years in history and a lot of homosexuals, some of 'em *must* have decided they were married, and so that's it. That probably wouldn't even fly in Mayberry.
You are just a WEE bit ignorant apparently of the means by which research is evaluated in the university. Just because Boswell writes a book arguing A does not make A correct. Boswell has to be supported by others in the scholarly community, or at least he has to avoid being discovered doing things of great scholarly dishonesty like mistranslating key terms in order to conceive of Church law in ways utterly contrary to the scholarly consensus. Unfortunately for Boswell, it HAS been revealed that he did such things, and his work has been impugned by that fact. Such a conversation is worthless with you, as you clearly haven't the ability to understand such things, but the point needs to be emphasized for thinking people who might be reading your ravings.
Finally, what the APA says on their website about homosexuality or anything related to that must be understood in the same light and in the context of the specific facts regarding their 1973 decision to change their classification of homosexuality. Historians of the event have been clear in pointing out the profoundly POLITICAL nature of that decision--homosexual activists had been demonstrating at APA events and conferences and attempting to force the organization to change their intellectual position based on politics, and this is precisely what they did. Ron Bayer and Jeff Satinover have written books that discuss this blatant ideology masquerading as 'scientific breakthrough.'
There was no new research in the late 60s or early 70s to suggest homosexuality should be radically reconceptualized--the Gay Liberation Front, the Mattachine Society and other such groups simply ambushed the organization. And the APA got in line.
Do you even know who Chicken Little *is*?
If it was an insult to your intelligence to objectively note how little of it is apparent here, then yes guilty.
Keep that dictionary handy! Never know when you'll need it to solve a serious scholarly problem!
The Mad Professor? Don't you mean the Mad Professer? Of Socioligy?
Hey, look, I've done some Mayberry style 'research':
Go to: http://www.gorge.org/techiedom/iqtest.shtml where you find "The ability to spell can indicate general intelligence. Remembering a set sequence of letters indicates the mind's ability to retrieve remembered facts. Learning how to spell and use the words of a language is almost a complete IQ test in itself. Although poor spellers with high IQ scores can be found it is rare and in general--everything else being equal--the better spellers have higher IQ scores."
Q.E.D.! But let me check the dictionary first!
As if anyone is paying attention...
Randi writes,
Proctologist said "I doubt Orin has made the claim that same sex marriage will keep heterosexuals from marrying".
Once again your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance. In this thread:
http://www.teachthefacts.org/2007/05/gallup-this-is-good-news.html
at May 29, 2007 1:00 PM
Orin said "ANYTHING that keeps a man and woman separated, be it a ban on inter-racial couples, or same-sex marriage, should be resisted.".
Now Randi, you should know better than to willfully distort what I have written...tsk, tsk.
Once again...sigh...same-sex "marriage" will NOT prevent heterosexuals from getting married, but it will certainly disestablish any public understanding that marriage involves the union of one man and one woman. This answers the specious charge that preserving marriage as a unique man-woman union is anything closely akin to the ban on interracial marriage. The irony of this is that those advocating marriage "equality" have more in common with those once wanting to uphold interracial marriage bans.
Now Orin hysterically shrieks "Allowing two men or two women to get "married" does violence to the public understanding of what marriage means - the union of one man and one woman.".
Enough of the hyperbole Orin, one can't do violence to a word Orin
Then you know even less about the language than either Culturologist or I had supposed.
and even once gays get the right to marry over 95% of the time when people hear of a marriage it will be exactly the same sort of marriage its always been - that's a trivial change to the meaning of the word if anything. Now tell me step by step how this trivial change to the word is going to keep men and women apart - you still haven't answered the question.
"Trivial"? My, my...this reminds me of the person that is not discerning and even less discriminating in their tastes, and thinks the store brand gin tastes the same as a premium gin.
Darling, it just ain't so...which like a pig, can be dressed up, and have lipstick put on it, but it is still a pig.
Oh, and lest I forget...
I have answered your question; you simply do not like what you hear, and so you claim I have not answered your question.
Orin, you've not answered the question, you've just made a different version of your assertion, instead of saying letting gays get married keeps men and women apart you're saying doing "violence" to the meaning of marriage keeps men and women apart. Once again, how exactly would that work with a hypothetical man and woman?
Orin said "Now Randi, you should know better than to willfully distort what I have written."
Orin, not an important distinction between keeping men and women apart and preventing them from marrying.
Orin said "same-sex "marriage" will NOT prevent heterosexuals from getting married, but it will certainly disestablish any public understanding that marriage involves the union of one man and one woman."
And if equal marriage doesn't prevent men and women from marrying it doesn't keep men and women apart, case closed.
Orin said "This answers the specious charge that preserving marriage as a unique man-woman union is anything closely akin to the ban on interracial marriage.".
Now your statment, that's specious. The gay couple down the street getting married doesn't prevent you from preserving any man/woman union you wish. The ban on interracial marriage is exactly like the ban on same sex marriage. In both cases its keeping loving couples apart for no good reason, merely for the sake of bigotry.
Orin, that's why I call you names like bigot and Aunt Bea says the world would be a better place with more Randis in it. You oppose treating others as you would prefer to be treated and I support that, even for a bigot like you.
Proctologist responded to my statment, so much for his three declarations that he saw no point in responding to me and wouldn't do so. Your flakiness is perfectly in keeping with your ignorance about sexuality, culture, morality and your general lack of maturity.
Once again, the "arguement from authority" is a logical fallacy. The truth of a position isn't determined by the authority, knowledge, or position of the person asserting it and that goes for you in particular, your "credentials" do nothing to make your lies the truth.
Further your naive believe that if you attack Boswell you discredit his work is also a logical fallacy as the validity of a statement is independent from the person making. Its not surprising that your arguments are virtually entirely based on the fallacies of ad hominems and arguements from authority (which you've proven aren't).
The idea that the celebrations described by Boswell are "rights of passage" and that the participiants were only together temporarily is preposterous. Rights of passage don't involve joining two people together, they are based on a defined transition of an individual.
The celebration involved:
The couple standing together at the Altar
Hands joined
Blessing by the priest
Sharing Communion
Prayers of promise of lifelong fidelity
Banquet for friends and family afterwards
Walking around the altar
Comparable use of litanies
Sometimes crowning
One has to ask ones self, "What are two men in a Roman Catholic Church (or Greek Orthodox) doing with their hands joined, or holding crowns over each other’s head, at a communion service, asking for unashamed fidelity and sincere love or that they be united in perfect love and inseparable life or to be granted the grace to love each other in joy without injury or hatred all the days of their life if not getting married? The idea that they're participating in a right of passage unrelated to marriage can't be taken seriously and neither you nor Orin have a shred of an argument to dispute this, just your adhominems on Boswell.
The overwhelming majority of the evidence has shown that children of gays do just as well as children of heterosexuals if not better. Its hilarious that you criticize me for not having read the studies when you haven't read them yourself. Your standards are subjective, an act is wrong if I do it but not if you do. Its childish philosophies like that that demonstrate your lack of credibility.
Its mighty hypocritical of you to suggest summarizations are the be all and end all and then to ignore the APA's conclusions based on the huge volume of research that's been done on same sex parenting:
[T]here is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or 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."
Further to your insistence that summaries are the way to go the Justice Department of the Canadian government commissioned a study on gay parenting in 2003 by Paul Hastings at Concordia University.
In the 74-page study Hastings referenced about 100 studies on parenting and children's development. The conclusion reached was that parenting by same-sex families is just as good -- if not slightly advantageous -- for children when compared to heterosexual families.
Not surprisingly the social conservatives of Stephen Harper's government, being bigots like yourself, tried to suppress the study because it wasn't in keeping with the hate agenda people like you like to promote.
Just like the Amercan Psychological association did the Canadian Psychological Association took the position that equal marriage for same sex couples would benefit children and the studies back that up:
http://www.egale.ca/index.asp?lang=E&menu=56&item=2127.
Once again the deception of Orin and you is exposed, despite your claims to be concerned about children you obviousl don't give a damn about children because if you did you would support marriage for the children of gays given that those marriage in no way affect the children of heterosexuals whatsoever. Your sole motivation is animus and that's crystal clear despite your heinous efforts to disguise it.
Your ignorant assertion that the children of gays are more likely to grow up gay is overwhelmingly refuted by the studies I listed, not to mention the fact that the children of heterosexuals are not certain to grow up heterosexual and the vast majority if gays had heterosexual parents.
Your ignorance is exposed by your childish assertion (despite the overwhelming abundance of evidence to the contrarty) that kids in gay families are more likely to be gay as the APA says that sexuality is partially environmental. Environmental causes don't refer solely to upbringing, it refers to biological environmental causes which are not influenced by upbringing, things like in-utero hormones, exposure to chemicals, viruses, etc.
The American Academy Of Pediatrics notes "IN RECENT DECADES, BIOLOGICALLY BASED THEORIES HAVE BEEN FAVORED BY EXPERTS."
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/113/6/1827
Your baseless assertion that the APA removed gayness from the DSM because of politics highlights your desperation to justify your bigotry. There never was a justification for including it in the DSM in the first place. There were no scientific studies supporting the assertion that being gay was a mental illness.
Studies by Evelyn Hooker in the 1950's made it clear that gays were psychological indistinguishable from straights on common measures of mental health. It is clear that gayness is not pathological, and that comes from studies that were primarily done in the 60's, 70's and 80's. There were a flurry of studies done after the classical study by Evelyn Hooker in 1957 , which produced the large body of studies from the 60's -70's. Then the studies dwindle down as the 80's progress, and very few studies can be found in the 90's. This is because all of the evidence is convergent, so no further studies were warranted, and the conclusion was that homosexuality evidenced no pathological characteristics that were significantly different from heterosexuals.
a) MMPI data:
L Braaten-1965, Genetic Psychology Monographs 71:269-310
R Dean-1964, J of Consulting Psychology 28 483-86
W Horstman-1972, Homosexuality and Psychopathology(dissertation)
Adelman-1977, Arch of Sex Beh 6(3):193-201
Oberstone-1976, Psychology of Women Quarterly 1(2):172-86
b) Other tests (Eysenck's Personality Inventory, Cattel's 16PF, California Personality Inventory, etc)
R Evans-1970, J of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 34:212-15
R Turner-1974, Br J of Psychiatry 125:447-49
M Siegelman-1972, Br J of Psychiatry 120:477-481
M Siegelman-1972, Archives of Sexual Behavior 2:9-25
M Freedman-1971, Homosexuality and Psychological Functioning, Brooks/Cole Publ.
J Hopkins-1969, Br J of Psychiatry 115:1433-1436
M Wilson-1971, Psychological Reports 28:407-412
N Thompson-1971, J of Abnormal Psychology 78:237-40
E Ohlson-1974, J of Sex Research 10:308-315
D Christie-1986, Psychological Reports 59:1279-1282
H Carlson-1984, Sex Roles 10:457-67
T Clark-1975, Am J of Psychoanalysis 35:163-68
R LaTorre-1983, J of Homosexuality 9:87-97
P Nurius-1983, J of Sex Research 19:119-36
C Rand-1982, J of Homosexuality 8(1):27-39 J Harry-1983, Archives of Sexual Behavior 12:1-19
E Hooker-1957, J of Projective Techniques 21:18-31
c) Reviews
B Harris-1977, Bulletin of the Am Acad of Psychiatry and Law 5:75-89
J Gonsiorek-1977, Psychological Adjustment and Homosexuality, Select Press.
W Paul-1982, Homosexuality: Social, Psychological and Biological Issues; Sage Publ.
M Hart-1978, J of Clinical Psychiatry 39:604-608
R Meredith-1980, Professional Psychology 11:174-93
B Reiss-1974, J of Homosexuality 1:71-85
B Reiss-1980, Homosexual Behavior a modern reappraisal, Basic Books
P Falk-1989, Am Psychologist 44(6):941-947
Kingdon-1979, Counseling Psychologist 8(1):44-45
V Armon-1960, Journal of Projective Techniques 24:292-309
N Thompson-1971, J of Abnormal Psychology 78:237-40
d) Psychiatric Interviews
R Pillard-1988, Psychiatric Annals 18:51-56
M Saghir-1970, Am J of Psychiatry 126:1079-86
That some gays suffer from higher incidences of problems is not surprising given that gays are an oppressed minority. Blacks have higher level's of homelessness, drug and alcohol abuse, disease, lower education levels, suicide, and so on. No one would suggest that's because being black is a mental illness. Your argument that this is inherent in being gay because problems still exist for gays in "liberal" European countries is specious. Liberalizing the law's treatment of gays does nothing to force anyone to change their bigoted attitudes towards gays. Gays in Europe still suffer the same oppression that gays do in other countries that haven't liberalized their laws. The analogy again is Blacks in the united states. Blacks have gained legal equality in the states and argueably even preferential treatment in the form of affirmative action and this has not eliminated the discriminiation and oppression they face which is evident in their higher levels of social dysfunction compared to whites. Clearly once gays obtain legal equality in the U.S. bigots like you aren't going to change your mind and stop demonizing gays and oppressing them as you always have.
David Popenoe has written several books and many articles evaluating the existing evidence on family structure and child outcomes and he shows pretty clearly that biological Mom and Dad model does better than all other models--not just better than single parent models, but better than all other models. I'd advise you to have a look over his work.
None of Popenoe's publications that I have been able to locate concern same-sex couples. It appears that Popenoe has only studied children raised in families headed by heterosexual couples (married, cohabiting, divorced, widowed/widowered, and remarried) and compared them to children raised by single parents. If you have information about any study by Popenoe that involves children raised in same-sex headed families, please provide it.
Blankenhorn has also looked over a lot of this research and analyzed it in summary fasion. [sic- a highfalutin professor has said, "The ability to spell can indicate general intelligence. Remembering a set sequence of letters indicates the mind's ability to retrieve remembered facts. Learning how to spell and use the words of a language is almost a complete IQ test in itself. Although poor spellers with high IQ scores can be found it is rare and in general--everything else being equal--the better spellers have higher IQ scores." Don't you forget it.] But of course you won't bother to read and understand the several books he's written on this topic because some fool on the Independent Gay Forum wrote a dopey one-page 'rebuttal' that reveals most basically only that the Independent Gay Forum idiot doesn't know very much about how social scientists think these days about causality and correlation.
Assume what you will but this lady won't read David Blankenhorn's books and articles for different reasons. He founded the Institute for American Values, a privately funded think tank that publishes his books and articles, which are not peer reviewed as required for publication in reputable scientific journals. "The institute's budget of some $1.5 million largely comes from foundations, corporations and individual donations, which support studies, conferences, books and other publications...Blankenhorn [is]... a polarizing figure...[and] ...admits he has a "pushy" side. "I've had fallings-out over differing opinions..." he says...[S]ome in the family field view Blankenhorn as a "right-wing political advocate"...[and] people call his think tank conservative.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-13-blankenhorn-fatherhood_N.htm
It's pretty obvious Blankenhorn's not interested in learning about sexual orientation issues but already has his mind made up. It appears he prefers to publish privately to push his right wing opinions rather than to perform research to honestly discover and report facts about sexual orientation. If you have access to any of his papers that have been published in mainstream reputable peer reviewed journals, please provide them and I will read those.
Even the Judith Stacey study of a few years back that looked at the question and later essentially admitted that the results were spun politically because of a perceived need to be as homosexual-friendly as possible demonstrated negative differences of homosexual families.
There's so much spin on both sides that water has become quite muddy in this case. Rather than quoting spinners, here are a few portions of the sworn Affidavit of Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz filed in a Canadian case, Halpern v. Canada. (emphasis added):
3. Recently, we published the co-authored findings of our comprehensive analysis of two decades of research literature that investigates the impact of sexual orientation of parents on children. Attached as Exhibit “C” to this affidavit is a copy of this study, Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review (volume 66, number 2, April 2001). The American Sociological Review is the most prestigious, selective and rigorously reviewed journal in sociology in the United States. It was referee-reviewed in three rounds by seven reviewers. Professor Nock has personally complimented Professor Stacey on the quality and substance of the article on April 28 2001 at the Council on Contemporary Families Conference on marriage research in New York.
4. We have been asked to evaluate the assertions contained in the affidavits of Professors Steven Nock and Craig Hart, filed in the within proceedings. Professor Nock’s affidavit criticizes the methodological adequacy and quality of the social science research on the effects of lesbian and gay parenting on children. Specifically, Professor Nock states that there is inadequate research to conclude whether or not there are any detrimental effects to children with same-sex parents. In this affidavit, we criticize and reject Professor Nock’s assertion that there is no scientifically valid evidence of equal outcomes between children with same-sex parents and children with heterosexual parents. He is simply wrong to say that all of the studies published to date are virtually worthless and unscientific. There is significant, reliable social scientific evidence that lesbian and gay parents are as fit, effective and successful as similar heterosexual parents. The research shows that children fo [sic] same-sex coupels [sic] are as emotionally healthy and socially adjusted and at least as educationally and socially successful as children raised by heterosexual parents. We conclude that granting same-sex parents the freedom to marry would likely result in positive outcomes for such parents, their children, gay and lesbian people, and society as a whole. We also reject the assertions of Professor Craig Hart. His analysis is intellectually flawed and the studies cited are irrelevant to the issues in this case.
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/Affidavit_of_J_Stacey.pdf
This affidavit is not spin; it is what the authors, Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz swore to in a legal case. Have they been accused, prosecuted for, and found guilty of perjury? If not, we will have to assume this sworn affidavit is true.
...what the APA says on their website about homosexuality or anything related to that must be understood in the same light and in the context of the specific facts regarding their 1973 decision to change their classification of homosexuality. Historians of the event have been clear in pointing out the profoundly POLITICAL nature of that decision--homosexual activists had been demonstrating at APA events and conferences and attempting to force the organization to change their intellectual position based on politics, and this is precisely what they did. Ron Bayer and Jeff Satinover have written books that discuss this blatant ideology masquerading as 'scientific breakthrough.'
There was no new research in the late 60s or early 70s to suggest homosexuality should be radically reconceptualized--the Gay Liberation Front, the Mattachine Society and other such groups simply ambushed the organization. And the APA got in line.
Are you calling Jeffrey Satinover an "historian?" Jeffrey Satinover is a member of NARTH's Scientific Advisory Committee and a winner of a 1998 NARTH Fellow Award. Many members of NARTH are involved with "conversion therapy" ministries including two of NARTH's officers, Treasurer David C. Pruden, Director of Evergreen International and Executive Secretary Arthur A. Goldberg, Co-founder and Co-director of JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality) and President, PATH (Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality). The nearly 1,000 members of NARTH represent a tiny fraction of the hundreds of thousands of members of American mainstream professional medical and mental health organizations such as the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatric, etc., but you think the APA is POLITICAL?
As far as what NARTH advocates like you consider the "political" decision of the APA to remove homosexuality from the DSM, here are two competing versions about what happened back then, one from the left and one from the right. Rather than just reporting one side's view, I've provided both sides so readers here may be fully informed.
http://rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/TVC_APA.html
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php
Thanks Aunt Bea, you're wonderful. Its great that you exposed the culturologists attempts to falsely portray David Popenoe's book as showing gay parenting to be inferior when it never looked at gay parents at all. I should have known better than to take Culturologist's word for it that this actually looked at gay parenting. I knew it would be a distortion somehow, I just didn't know it would be totally bogus from the word go.
Otis thinks Aunt Bea has 'proved' something about Popenoe's work by citing a USA Today article about it. Enough said. This isn't worth any more of my time.
Popenoe is eminently clear in _LIfe Without Father_ how much evidence we have that males and females bring different parenting techniques to the table that produce optimal results in child outcomes (and, incidentally, Carol Gilligan argues the same thing, as anyone who has read her book knows, although she has allowed her ideological rigidily to lead her to attack James Dobson for daring to reiterate what she said there in a political framework with which she disaproves).
He also points out quite clearly that the research on homosexual parenting that Otis and Aunt Bea have cited (without reading, naturally) is simply insufficient to make the case the homosexual lobby wants it to make. But verifying that would require actually READING THE BOOK, wouldn't it? So no chance the two of you will be up that task, not when there are USA Today 'summaries' online, eh?
And WHY DON'T YOU READ STACEY AND BILBARZ AND SEE what they argued about the different outcomes in homosexual and heterosexual families? One would think that would be a simple enough response. They try to spin it in a positive way, to be sure, as they are good homosexual-friendly sociologists, but they can't avoid indicating that kids raised in homosexual families are more open to 'experiment' with their sexualities.
Given what we know about the high tendency to pathologies associated with homosexual identity (suicide, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, depression--in my view, doesn't matter very much if that's because of their disordered state or social prejudice--anyone who would actively and enthusiastically welcome more kids in those high risk categories is simply not interested in the welfare of kids, period) and the heightened STD risk for sexual activities predominantly engaged in by male homosexuals (anal intercourse), that ought to be more than enough to provide food for thought to people actually interested in child welfare.
Goodbye, Mayberry.
Who doesn't bother to read?
The USA article I cited was about David Blankenhorn, not David Popenoe. Searching Popenoe's publications page on the Rutgers website (http://marriage.rutgers.edu/codirectors.htm#popenoepubs) for the words "homosexual(s)," "gay(s)," "lesbian(s)," and "same(-)sex" yields no hits. I repeat If you have information about any study by Popenoe that involves children raised in same-sex headed families, please provide it.
I did find it interesting that Dr. Popenoe apparently wrote the following review of a book entitled "What God Has Joined Together?: A Christian Case for Gay Marriage"
David Popenoe, Co-Director, National Marriage Project, Rutgers University.
"A well-reasoned, important and timely contribution to the national debate."
http://www.amazon.com/What-God-Has-Joined-Together/dp/0060774614
The Cult'ist said they can't avoid indicating that kids raised in homosexual families are more open to 'experiment' with their sexualities.
Given what we know about the high tendency to pathologies associated with homosexual identity...
Just because some kids are more "open" to something, doesn't mean they're all going to act on it. Being open to "experiment" with one's sexuality is not the same thing as assuming a "homosexual identity" yet you have carelessly confounded the two. That's what I consider to be a glaring error for a person who so often proclaims himself to be well versed in scientific analysis.
The Cult'ist continued the heightened STD risk for sexual activities predominantly engaged in by male homosexuals (anal intercourse)
When you're wrong, you're really wrong. Here's another study you might find illuminating. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad362.pdf
The CDC reports "Among adult males 25–44 years of age, 97 percent have had sexual contact with an opposite-sex partner in their lives; 97 percent have had vaginal intercourse, 90 percent have had oral sex with a female, and 40 percent have had anal sex with a female."
If 97% of the population is straight, and 40% of them have anal sex, that means anal sex is predominantly occurring in the heterosexual population, even if you were to wrongly assume that 100% of LGBTs engage in anal sex (they don't).
Correcting your mistakes "isn't worth any more of my time," except for the learning doing so provides the readers here.
I will say it one more time, Aunt Bea, and then I'll give up. Why don't you read the sources you purport to know something about? Step away from your Google search engine for a few minutes and actually read something that's longer than a page. I GAVE you the source where Popenoe discusses homosexual parenting and the studies on same--are you blind as well as ignorant? The work doesn't have to have 'homosexuality' in the title to discuss the topic somewhere inside, you know. Or maybe you don't know.
Experimentation with homosexual sex does not have to lead to homosexual identity to incur problems. It only takes one wrong encounter to wind up with AIDS or another STD, and all the medical studies indicate that anal sex is a surer way of communicating many of those STDS, including HIV, precisely because of the fact that the anus is not designed for intercourse.
But you're likely one of those blind folk who still refuse to recognize the fact that the overwhelming majority of new AIDS cases every year are men who have anal sex with men, eh?
Logic, Aunt Bea, logic--it might not be YOUR friend, but you have to get acquainted with it if you want to be able to function outside Mayberry. Even if it WERE true that 40% of heterosexuals have actually engaged in anal sex (highly doubtful, many men esp. love to claim this as a sign of their sexual 'conquests' even if they've never done it), that CERTAINLY isn't the percentage of those who engage im it nearly every time they have sexual experience.
Homosexual men, on the other hand, engage in it with much greater frequency (oh, you'll perhaps deny this too--they're just holding hands and making goo goo eyes, aren't they, AUnt Bea?) and all the studies also indicate that they have more sexual partners over a lifetime than heterosexuals (even Jonathan Rauch is forced to admit this, however much he tries to pare the difference down with rhetoric and deception), hence the practice is much more closely associated with THEIR sexual orientation and practice than that of heterosexuals.
Here, as elsewhere, the proof is empirically quite readily available, however much the AUnt Beas of the world can't be bothered to see it--men who have sex with men communicate HIV at a much greater propensity than men and women communicate it via vaginal sex. You wouldn't have known it for a long time because the homosexual lobby was so effective at preventing medical professionals from pointing out the inconvenient fact, but it is nonetheless true--why is it otherwise that the forever-predicted 'heterosexual AIDS epidemic' in the US has not happened, while homosexual men continue to infect one another at frightening rates?
Oh, I forgot--it's because of prejudice against homosexuals.
YOu cannot know how funny it is to me that you imagine you are educating anyone, with your references to USA TOday, clear unfamiliarity with studies you purport to mobilize in your case (the Stacey studey, to take one of a trillion examples), the inability to catch references as they are provided and simply consult the relevant source for proof. Do you know where the index of a book can be found? That's the place to go in Popenoe and look for 'Homosexual couples, parenting by'--pretty clear, homosexuals try to mimic the gendered parenting, not at all clear from the data that they manage to do so, while the empirical fact that he and Gilligan and others note that predominantly men do male parenting and females do female parenting is staring you in the face like the sun. It's alphabetically arranged, so you'll need to have some familiarity with the alphabet--but that's likely a step you won't get to, because it's a virtual certainty you don't have the book or a library card--but just stick with googling USA TOday, Aunty, that'll get you by in Mayberry!
Culturologist, you haven't read the 34 studies I listed, and its hilarious that you criticize others for this as though you're somehow above this.
Popenoe is a lonely voice in the wilderness compared to the 34 opinions arrayed against him, the major mental and physical health associations (the APA alone lists 63 studies showing favourable results for gay parenting), and the summary work in 2003 by Paul Hastings at Concordia University. In the 74-page study Hastings referenced about 100 studies on parenting and children's development. The conclusion reached was that parenting by same-sex families is just as good -- if not slightly advantageous -- for children when compared to heterosexual families. The unsupported theory that men and women parent differently with implications for children isn't born out by actual results in the real world, the overwhelming majority of the evidence clearly shows the children of gays do just as well, if not better than the children of heterosexuals and clearly shows that the children of gays are no more likely to grow up gay than the children of heterosexuals.
Note these studies showing positive outcomes for gay parenting:
ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project. (2002). Too high a price: The case against restricting gay parenting. New York: American Civil Liberties Union.
Agbayewa, M. O. (1984). Fathers in the newer family forms: Male or female? Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 29, 402-406.
Allen, K. R., & Demo, D. H. (1995). The families of lesbians and gay men: A new frontier in family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 111-127.
Allen, M., & Burrell, N. (1996). Comparing the impact of homosexual and heterosexual parents on children: Meta-analysis of existing research. Journal of Homosexuality, 32, 19-35.
Alpert, H. (1988). We are everywhere: Writings by and about lesbian parents. Freedom, CA: The Crossing Press.
American Psychiatric Association. (1974). Position statement on homosexuality and civil rights. American Journal of Psychiatry, 131, 497.
American Psychological Association. (1975). Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Council of Representatives. American Psychologist, 30, 620-633.
Amato, P. R. (2001). Children of divorce in the 1990s: An update of the Amato and Keith (1991) meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 355-370.
Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 26-46.
Anderssen, N., Amlie, C., & Ytteroy, E. A. (2002). Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents: A review of studies from 1978 to 2000. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 335-351.
Appell, A. R. (2003). Recent developments in lesbian and gay adoption law. Adoption Quarterly, 7(1), 73-84.
Armesto, J. C. (2002). Developmental and contextual factors that influence gay fathers' parental competence: A review of the literature. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 3, 67-78.
Arnup, K. (Ed.). (1995). Lesbian parenting: Living with pride and prejudice. Charlottetown PEI, Canada: Gynergy Press. Return to top
Bailey, J. M., Bobrow, D., Wolfe, M., & Mikach, S. (1995). Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers. Developmental Psychology, 31, 124-129.
Barret, R. L., & Robinson, B. E. (1990). Gay fathers. Lexington MA: Lexington Books.
Barrett, H., & Tasker, F. (2001). Growing up with a gay parent: Views of 101 gay fathers on their sons' and daughters' experiences. Educational and Child Psychology, 18, 62-77.
Belcastro, P. A., Gramlich, T., Nicholson, T., Price, J., & Wilson, R. (1993). A review of data based studies addressing the effects of homosexual parenting on children's sexual and social functioning. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 20, 105-122.
Bigner, J. J., & Bozett, F. W. (1990). Parenting by gay fathers. In F. W. Bozett & M. B. Sussman (Eds.), Homosexuality and family relations (pp. 155-176). New York: Harrington Park Press.
Bigner, J. J., & Jacobsen, R. B. (1989a). The value of children to gay and heterosexual fathers. In F. W. Bozett (Ed.), Homosexuality and the family (pp. 163-172). New York: Harrington Park Press.
Bigner, J. J., & Jacobsen, R. B. (1989b). Parenting behaviors of homosexual and heterosexual fathers. In F. W. Bozett (Ed.), Homosexuality and the family (pp. 173-186). New York: Harrington Park Press.
Bos, H. M. W., van Balen, F., & van den Boom, D. C. (2003). Planned lesbian families: Their desire and motivation to have children. Human Reproduction, 10, 2216-2224.
Bos, H. M. W., van Balen, F., & van den Boom, D. C. (2004). Experience of parenthood, couple relationship, social support, and child-rearing goals in planned lesbian mother families. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 755-764.
Bozett, F. W. (1980). Gay fathers: How and why they disclose their homosexuality to their children. Family Relations, 29, 173-179.
Bozett, F. W. (1987). Children of gay fathers. In F. W. Bozett (Ed.), Gay and lesbian parents (pp. 39-57). New York: Praeger.
Bozett, F. W. (1989). Gay fathers: A review of the literature. In F. W. Bozett (Ed.), Homosexuality and the family (pp. 137-162). New York: Harrington Park Press.
Brewaeys, A., Ponjaert, I., Van Hall, E. V., & Golombok, S. (1997). Donor insemination: Child development and family functioning in lesbian mother families. Human Reproduction, 12, 1349-1359.
Brewaeys, A., & Van Hall, E. V. (1997). Lesbian motherhood: The impact on child development and family functioning. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology, 18, 1-16. Return to top
Chan, R. W., Brooks, R. C., Raboy, B., & Patterson, C. J. (1998). Division of labor among lesbian and heterosexual parents: Associations with children's adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 402-419.
Chan, R. W., Raboy, B., & Patterson, C. J. (1998). Psychosocial adjustment among children conceived via donor insemination by lesbian and heterosexual mothers. Child Development, 69, 443-457.
Ciano-Boyce, C., & Shelley-Sireci, L. (2002). Who is Mommy tonight? Lesbian parenting issues. Journal of Homosexuality, 43, 1-13.
Clausen, J. (1985). Sinking stealing. Trumansburg, New York: The Crossing Press.
Cochran, Susan, D. (2001). Emerging issues in research on lesbians' and gay men's mental health: Does sexual orientation really matter? American Psychologist, 56, 931-947.
Crawford, I., McLeod, A., Zamboni, B. D., & Jordan, M. B. (1999). Psychologists' attitudes toward gay and lesbian parenting. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30, 394-401.
Falk, P. J. (1989). Lesbian mothers: Psychosocial assumptions in family law. American Psychologist, 44, 941-947.
Falk, P. J. (1994). The gap between psychosocial assumptions and empirical research in lesbian-mother child custody cases. In A. E. Gottfried & A. W. Gottfried (Eds.), Redefining families: Implications for children's development (pp. 131-156). New York: Plenum.
Finkelhor, D., & Russell, D. (1984). Women as perpetrators: Review of the evidence. In D. Finkelhor (Ed.), Child sexual abuse: New theory and research (pp. 171-187). New York: Free Press.
Flaks, D., Ficher, I., Masterpasqua, F., & Joseph, G. (1995). Lesbians choosing motherhood: A comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual parents and their children. Developmental Psychology, 31, 104-114.
Freedman, M. (1971). Homosexuality and psychological functioning. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Return to top
Fulcher, M., Chan, R. W., Raboy, B., & Patterson, C. J. (2002). Contact with grandparents among children conceived via donor insemination by lesbian and heterosexual mothers. Parenting: Science and Practice, 2, 61-76.
Galluccio, J., Galluccio, M., & Groff, D. M. (2002). An American family. New York: St. Martins Press.
Gartrell, N., Hamilton, J., Banks, A., Mosbacher, D., Reed, N., Sparks, C. H., & Bishop, H. (1996). The National Lesbian Family Study: 1. Interviews with prospective mothers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66(2), 272-281.
Gartrell, N., Banks, A., Hamiliton, J., Reed, N., Bishop, H., & Rodas, C. (1999). The National Lesbian Family Study: 2. Interviews with mothers of toddlers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 69(3), 362-369.
Gartrell, N., Banks, A., Reed, N., Hamiliton, J., Rodas, C., & Deck, A. (2000). The National Lesbian Family Study: 3. Interviews with mothers of five-year-olds. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 70(4), 542-548.
Gartrell, N., Deck, A., Rodas, C., Peyser, H., & Banks, A. (2005). The National Lesbian Family Study: 4. Interviews with the 10-year-old children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75 (4), 518-524.
Gershon, T. D., Tschann, J. M., & Jemerin, J. M. (1999). Stigmatization, self-esteem, and coping among the adolescent children of lesbian mothers. Journal of Adolescent Health, 24, 437-445.
Gillis, J. R. (1998). Cultural heterosexism and the family. In C. J. Patterson & A. R. D'Augelli (Eds.), Lesbian, gay and bisexual identities in the family: Psychological perspectives (pp. 249-269). New York: Oxford University Press.
Golombok, S., Perry, B., Burston, A., Murray, C., Mooney-Somers, J., Stevens, M., & Golding, J. (2003). Children with lesbian parents: A community study. Developmental Psychology, 39, 20-33.
Golombok, S., & Rust, J. (1993). The Pre-School Activities Inventory: A standardized assessment of gender role in children. Psychological Assessment, 5(2), 131-136.
Golombok, S., Spencer, A., & Rutter, M. (1983). Children in lesbian and single-parent households: Psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24, 551-572.
Golombok, S., & Tasker, F. (1996). Do parents influence the sexual orientation of their children? Findings from a longitudinal study of lesbian families. Developmental Psychology, 32, 3-11.
Golombok, S., Tasker, F. L., & Murray, C. (1997). Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: Family relationships and the socioemotional development of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 783-791.
Gonsiorek, J. (1991). The empirical basis for the demise of the illness model of homosexuality. In J. C. Gonsiorek & J. D. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp. 115-136). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gottman, J. S. (1990). Children of gay and lesbian parents. In F. W. Bozett & M. B. Sussman (Eds.), Homosexuality and family relations (pp. 177-196). New York: Harrington Park Press.
Green, J. (1999). The velveteen father: An unexpected journey to parenthood. New York: Ballantine Books. Return to top
Green, R. (1978). Sexual identity of 37 children raised by homosexual or transsexual parents. American Journal of Psychiatry, 135, 692-697.
Green, R., Mandel, J. B., Hotvedt, M. E., Gray, J., & Smith, L. (1986). Lesbian mothers and their children: A comparison with solo parent heterosexual mothers and their children. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7, 175-181.
Groth, A. N., & Birnbaum, H. J. (1978). Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7, 175-181.
Hand, S. I. (1991). The lesbian parenting couple. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Professional School of Psychology, San Francisco.
Harris, M. B., & Turner, P. H. (1985/86). Gay and lesbian parents. Journal of Homosexuality, 12, 101-113.
Hart, M., Roback, H., Tittler, B., Weitz, L., Walston, B., & McKee, E. (1978). Psychological adjustment of nonpatient homosexuals: Critical review of the research literature. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 39, 604-608.
Herek, G. M. (1995). Psychological heterosexism in the United States. In A. R. D'Augelli and C. J. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities over the lifespan: Psychological perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.
Herek, G. M. (1998). Bad science in the service of stigma: A critique of the Cameron group's survey studies. In Gregory M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. (pp. 223-255). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Hitchens, D. J., & Kirkpatrick, M. J. (1985). Lesbian mothers/gay fathers. In D. H. Schetky & E. P. Benedek (Eds.), Emerging issues in child psychiatry and the law (pp. 115-125). New York: Brunner-Mazel.
Hoeffer, B. (1981). Children's acquisition of sex-role behavior in lesbian-mother families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 5, 536-544.
Hooker, E. (1957). The adjustment of the male overt homosexual. Journal of Projective Techniques, 21, 17-31.
Howey, N., & Samuels, E. (Eds.). (2000). Out of the ordinary: Essays on growing up with lesbian, gay, and transgender parents. New York: St. Martins Press.
Huggins, S. L. (1989). A comparative study of self-esteem of adolescent children of divorced lesbian mothers and divorced heterosexual mothers. In F. W. Bozett (Ed.), Homosexuality and the family (pp. 123-135). New York: Harrington Park Press. Return to top
Jenny, C., Roesler, T. A., & Poyer, K. L. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94, 41-44.
Johnson, S. M., & O'Connor, E. (2002). The gay baby boom: The psychology of gay parenthood. New York: New York University Press.
Jones, B. M., & MacFarlane, K. (Eds.). (1980). Sexual abuse of children: Selected readings. Washington, DC: National Center on Child Abuse & Neglect.
Jullion, J. (1985). Long way home: The odyssey of a lesbian mother and her children. San Francisco: Cleis Press.
King, B. R., & Black, K. N. (1999). College students' perceptual stigmatization of the children of lesbian mothers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 69, 220-227.
Kirkpatrick, M. (1987). Clinical implications of lesbian mother studies. Journal of Homosexuality, 13, 201-211.
Kirkpatrick, M., Smith, C., & Roy, R. (1981). Lesbian mothers and their children: A comparative survey. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51, 545-551.
Kleber, D. J., Howell, R. J., & Tibbits-Kleber, A. L. (1986). The impact of parental homosexuality in child custody cases: A review of the literature. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 14, 81-87.
Koepke, L., Hare, J., & Moran, P. B. (1992). Relationship quality in a sample of lesbian couples with children and child-free lesbian couples. Family Relations, 41, 224-229.
Kweskin, S. L., & Cook, A. S. (1982). Heterosexual and homosexual mothers' self-described sex-role behavior and ideal sex-role behavior in children. Sex Roles, 8, 967-975.
Lewis, K. G. (1980). Children of lesbians: Their point of view. Social Work, 25, 198-203.
Lott-Whitehead, L., & Tully, C. T. (1993). The family lives of lesbian mothers. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 63, 265-280.
Lyons, T. A. (1983). Lesbian mothers' custody fears. Women and Therapy, 2, 231-240. Return to top
Mager, D. (1975). Faggot father. In K. Jay & A. Young (Eds.), After you're out (pp. 128-134). New York: Links Books.
Martin, A. (1993). The lesbian and gay parenting handbook: Creating and raising our families. New York: HarperCollins.
Martin, A. (1998). Clinical issues in psychotherapy with lesbian-, gay-, and bisexual-parented families. In C. J. Patterson & A. R. D'Augelli (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities in families: Psychological perspectives (pp. 270-291). New York: Oxford University Press.
Martin, D., & Lyon, P. (1972). Lesbian/woman. San Francisco: Glide Publications.
McCandlish, B. (1987). Against all odds: Lesbian mother family dynamics. In F. W. Bozett, (Ed.), Gay and lesbian parents (pp. 23-38). New York: Praeger.
McLeod, A. C., Crawford, I., & Zechmeister, J. (1999). Heterosexual undergraduates' attitudes toward gay fathers and their children. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 11, 43-62.
McPherson, D. (1993). Gay parenting couples: Parenting arrangements, arrangement satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pacific Graduate School of Psychology.
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674-697.
Miller, B. (1979). Gay fathers and their children. Family Coordinator, 28, 544-552.
Miller, J. A., Jacobsen, R. B., & Bigner, J. J. (1981). The child's home environment for lesbian versus heterosexual mothers: A neglected area of research. Journal of Homosexuality, 7, 49-56.
Money, J., & Ehrhardt, A. A. (1972). Man and woman, boy and girl: The differentiation and dimorphism of gender identity from conception to maturity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Morgen, K. B. (1995). Getting Simon: Two gay doctors' journey to fatherhood. New York: Bramble Books.
Morris, J. F., Balsam, K. F., & Rothblum, E. D. (2002). Lesbian and bisexual mothers and nonmothers: Demographics and the coming-out process. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 144-156.
Mucklow, B. M., & Phelan, G. K. (1979). Lesbian and traditional mothers' responses to adult responses to child behavior and self concept. Psychological Reports, 44, 880-882. Return to top
National Association of Social Workers. (1994). Policy statement on lesbian and gay issues. In Social work speaks: NASW policy statements (pp. 162-165). Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.
O'Connell, A. (1993). Voices from the heart: The developmental impact of a mother's lesbianism on her adolescent children. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 63, 281-299.
Osman, S. (1972). My stepfather is a she. Family Process, 11, 209-218.
Osterweil, D. A. (1991). Correlates of relationship satisfaction in lesbian couples who are parenting their first child together. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology, Berkeley/Alameda.
Pagelow, M. D. (1980). Heterosexual and lesbian single mothers: A comparison of problems, coping, and solutions. Journal of Homosexuality, 5, 198-204.
Parks, C. A. (1998). Lesbian parenthood: A review of the literature. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68, 376-389.
Patterson, C. J. (1992). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Development, 63, 1025-1042.
Patterson, C. J. (1994a). Children of the lesbian baby boom: Behavioral adjustment, self-concepts, and sex-role identity. In B. Greene & G. Herek (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on lesbian and gay psychology: Theory, research and application (pp. 156-175). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Patterson, C. J. (1994b). Lesbian and gay couples considering parenthood: An agenda for research, service, and advocacy. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 1, 33-55.
Patterson, C. J. (1994c). Lesbian and gay families. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 62-64.
Patterson, C. J. (1995a). Families of the lesbian baby boom: Parents' division of labor and children's adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 31, 115-123.
Patterson, C. J. (1995b). Lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children. In A. R. D'Augelli & C. J. Patterson, (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities over the lifespan: Psychological perspectives (pp. 262-290). New York: Oxford University Press.
Patterson, C. J. (1997). Children of lesbian and gay parents. In T. Ollendick & R. Prinz (Eds.), Advances in clinical child psychology, Volume 19 (pp. 235-282). New York: Plenum Press.
Patterson, C. J. (1998). Family lives of children with lesbian mothers. In C. J. Patterson & A. R. D'Augelli (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities in families: Psychological perspectives (pp. 154-176). New York: Oxford University Press.
Patterson, C. J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1052- 1069.
Patterson, C. J. (2001). Families of the lesbian baby boom: Maternal mental health and child adjustment. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 4, 91-107.
Patterson, C. J. (2004). Gay fathers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (4th ed.) (pp. 397-416). New York: John Wiley.
Patterson, C. J., & Chan, R. W. (1996). Gay fathers and their children. In R. P. Cabaj and T. S. Stein (Eds.), Textbook of homosexuality and mental health (pp. 371-393). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, Inc.
Patterson, C. J., Fulcher, M., & Wainright, J. (2002). Children of lesbian and gay parents: Research, law, and policy. In B. L. Bottoms, M. B. Kovera, & B. D. McAuliff (Eds.), Children, social science, and the law (pp. 176-199). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Patterson, C. J., Hurt, S., & Mason, C. D. (1998). Families of the lesbian baby boom: Children's contact with grandparents and other adults. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68, 390-399.
Patterson, C. J., & Redding, R. E. (1996). Lesbian and gay families with children: Implications of social science research for policy. Journal of Social Issues, 52(3), 29-50. Return to top
Paul, J. P. (1986). Growing up with a gay, lesbian, or bisexual parent: An exploratory study of experiences and perceptions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley CA.
Pennington, S. (1987). Children of lesbian mothers. In F. W. Bozett, (Ed.), Gay and lesbian parents (pp. 58-74). New York: Praeger.
Perreault, J. (1975). Lesbian mother. In K. Jay & A. Young (Eds.), After you're out (pp. 125-127). New York: Links Books.
Perrin, E. C. (1998). Children whose parents are lesbian or gay. Contemporary Pediatrics, 15, 113-130.
Perrin, E. C. (2002). Sexual orientation in child and adolescent health care. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Perrin, E. C., & the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. (2002). Technical report: Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. Pediatrics, 109, 341-344.
Pollack, S., & Vaughn, J. (Eds.). (1987). Politics of the heart: A lesbian parenting anthology. Ithaca, NY: Firebrand Books.
Puryear, D. (1983). A comparison between the children of lesbian mothers and the children of heterosexual mothers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology, Berkeley CA.
Rafkin, L. (Ed.). (1990). Different mothers: Sons and daughters of lesbians talk about their lives. Pittsburgh: Cleis Press.
Rand, C., Graham, D. L. R., & Rawlings, E. I. (1982). Psychological health and factors the court seeks to control in lesbian mother custody trials. Journal of Homosexuality, 8, 27-39.
Rees, R. L. (1979). A comparison of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers on three measures of socialization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology, Berkeley, CA.
Reiss, B. F. (1980). Psychological tests in homosexuality. In J. Marmor (Ed.), Homosexual behavior: A modern reappraisal (pp. 296-311). New York: Basic Books. Return to top
Sarafino, E. P. (1979). An estimate of nationwide incidence of sexual offenses against children. Child Welfare, 58, 127-134.
Sarantakos, S. (1996). Children in three contexts: Family, education, and social development. Children Australia, 21(3), 23-31.
Savage, D. (2000). The kid: What happened after my boyfriend and I decided to go get pregnant: An adoption story. New York: Plume.
Sbordone, A. J. (1993). Gay men choosing fatherhood. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology, City University of New York.
Schulenberg, J. (1985). Gay parenting: A complete guide for gay men and lesbians with children. New York: Anchor Books.
Siegenthaler, A. L., & Bigner, J. J. (2000). The value of children to lesbian and non-lesbian mothers. Journal of Homosexuality, 39, 73-311.
Stacey, J., & Biblarz, T. J. (2001). (How) Does sexual orientation of parents matter? American Sociological Review, 65, 159-183.
Steckel, A. (1985). Separation-individuation in children of lesbian and heterosexual couples. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Wright Institute Graduate School, Berkeley CA.
Steckel, A. (1987). Psychosocial development of children of lesbian mothers. In F. W. Bozett, (Ed.), Gay and lesbian parents (pp. 75-85). New York: Praeger.
Stein, T. S. (1993). Overview of new developments in understanding homosexuality. Review of Psychiatry, 12, 9-40.
Sullivan, M. (1996). Rozzie and Harriet? Gender and family patterns of lesbian coparents. Gender and Society, 10, 747-767.
Tasker, F. (1999). Children in lesbian-led families-A review. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 4, 153-166.
Tasker, F., & Golombok, S. (1995). Adults raised as children in lesbian families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 65, 203-215.
Tasker, F., & Golombok, S. (1997). Growing up in a lesbian family. New York: Guilford Press.
Tasker, F., & Golombok, S. (1998). The role of co-mothers in planned lesbian-led families. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 2, 49-68.
Thompson, N., McCandless, B., & Strickland, B. (1971). Personal adjustment of male and female homosexuals and heterosexuals. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 78, 237-240. Return to top
Vanfraussen, K., Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, I., & Brewaeys, A. (2003). Family functioning in lesbian families created by donor insemination. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 73, 78-90.
Victor, S. B., & Fish, M. C. (1995). Lesbian mothers and their children: A review for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 24, 456-479.
Wainright, J. L., Russell, S. T., & Patterson, C. J. (2004). Psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic relationships of adolescents with same-sex parents. Child Development, 75, 1886-1898.
Wardle, L. D. (1997). The potential impact of homosexual parenting on children. University of Illinois Law Review, 833-919.
Weeks, R. B., Derdeyn, A. P., & Langman, M. (1975). Two cases of children of homosexuals. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 6, 26-32.
Wells, J. (Ed.). (1997). Lesbians raising sons. Los Angeles: Alyson Books.
Weston, K. (1991). Families we choose: Lesbians, gays, kinship. New York: Columbia University Press.
Wright, J. M. (1998). Lesbian stepfamilies: An ethnography of love. New York: Harrington Park Press.
Given these studies the APA says in conclusion: In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or 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.
Culturologist said "all the studies also indicate that they have more sexual partners over a lifetime than heterosexuals".
Once again we can't tell if you resond out of bigotry, ignorance, or some combination thereof, but that is most certainly not the truth.
a) 40-60% of gay men, and 45-80% of lesbians are in a steady relationship
J Harry-1983 in Contemporary Families and Alternative Lifestyles, ed by Macklin, Sage Publ.
L Peplau-1981, in Journal of Homosexuality 6(3):1-19
J Spada-1979, The Spada Report, New American Library Publ
b) Studies of older homosexual people show that gay relationships lasting over 20 years are not uncommon
D McWhirter-1984, The Male Couple, Prentice-Hall
S Raphael-1980, Alternative Lifestyles 3:207-230, "The Older Lesbian"
C Silverstein-1981, Man to Man: Gay Couples in America, William Morrow Publ.
c) In a large sample of couples followed for 18 months the following "break up" statistics were observed: lesbians=22%, gay=16%, cohabiting heterosexuals=17%
Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) American Couples: Money, Work, Sex; Morrow Publ.
In a study of sexual behavior in gays and heterosexuals, the researchers found that of gay and bisexual men, 24% had one male partner in their lifetime, 45% had 2-4 male partners, 13% had 5-9 male partners, and 18% had 10 or more sexual partners, which produces a mean of less than 6 partners. (The statistics are done using the data presented, which is presented as a percentage of total males interviewed, both gay and straight (p. 345)--they can be verified yourself by looking at the numbers given in the paper)(Fay; n=97 gay males of 1450 males total). In a parallel study, a random sample of primarily straight men (n=3111 males who had had vaginal intercourse; of the total sample of n=3224 males, only 2.3% had indicated having had sex with both men and women), the mean number of sexual partners was 7.3, with 28.2% having 1-3 partners, and 23.3% having greater than 19 partners (Billy). This data indicates that gay men may have fewer number of sexual partners than heterosexuals.
J Billy-1993: Family Planning Perspectives 25:52-60
R Fay-1989, Science 243:338-348
Gay male couples united in formal ceremonies show higher commitment to monogamy. In a 1999 study Gretchen Stiers looked at nearly every gay couple in Massachusetts who had gone through a commitment ceremony. In these couples, over 80% of them indicated they were monogamous.(http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/kurtz080301.shtml)
An 88/89 survey of 560 male couples (http://www.buddybuddy.com/survey.html): Survey forms were sent to gay churches and community centers, and returned by couples reading notices in the gay press Among them, 63% were monogamous, 26% were monogamous with agreed exceptions, and 11% were non-monogamous.
Given that gays formally united are more monogamous anyone who truly opposed promiscuity would be supportive of equal marriage for same sex couples. Its obvious that the culturologist isn't sincere about promiscuity, that's a red herring and he's solely out to demonize gays with his lies.
The fact is that for all his ranting about STDs a committed gay couple isn't at anymore risk for STDs than a committed heterosexual couple and its people like him who stand in the way of such committments and who do everything they can to interfere in gay relationships which endure despite this. Global HIV is a primarily a heterosexual problem with heterosexuals vastly more responsible for its transmission than gays.
I GAVE you the source where Popenoe discusses homosexual parenting and the studies on same...Popenoe is eminently clear in _LIfe [sic] Without Father_
You mean Popenoe WAS clear. I'm not surprised our NARTH supporting visiting professor thinks of Popenoe's decade old, out of print 1996 book as "the bible" of family structures. He, like James Dobson, thinks he understands Carol Gilligan's research better than she does herself.
Jim got it right back on his December 2006 "Researcher Nails Dobson" thread. I am somewhat pessimistic about Dobson actually getting the message here. If he had to be truthful, had to stop bearing false witness, had to stop taking research out of context to support discriminatory goals, what would be left?
Guys, that was brilliant, the video was great, and the posters below blew all the wholes in his logic. This is a collaborative work that could really help us understand and heal our divisiveness in America. I am greatly appreciative of this page and the potential of these types of intense discussion. A liberal think tank at work.
Post a Comment
<< Home