Ireland recovering from Theocracy.

[Sam]

Yikes, I feel sorry for them.

Dealing with YEC is fun ... until it isn't. Then one moves to greener pastures (i.e., Civics).

[Sam]

While boils down to basically a repeat of the finding that family stability matters.

On the subject of adoption, there are two effects that are known (and opposite). One is that adopted children do tend to express concern about their rejection by their birth parents, and tend to feel a certain level of psychological discomfort as a result. The other effect is that parents who seek to adopt a child typically make much better parents than the average parent because (1) they sincerely want the child and the child isn't being born to them by accident, (2) they are at a place in their lives where they have decided they are financially and emotionally ready to support a child, and (3) if the adoption agency has more parents wanting to adopt than children to be adopted it may try to select the 'best' parents for the children.

That second effect (good parenting) outweighs the first (psychological distress), and adopted children do better on average than non-adopted children.

I agree that, even given an inherent penalty for the parent or parents who adopt a child older than one year, the benefits can (and often do) outweigh any detriment. It's important to remember that no every situation can be ideal for the children involved and that there are myriad factors that go into a child's upbringing.

[Starlight]

There is one thing I respect about many of those who patiently (or otherwise) take on YECs in Nat Sci 301: they use arguments and discuss relevant evidence and observations; they do not only point to the consensus as if that settled the matter.

Yikes, I feel sorry for them.

Consensus alone means little if anything when strong ideological biases exist, which is very clear.

Yes I'm spotting that in your responses. Why listen to the unanimous consensus of all relevant groups of scientific professionals when instead you can engage in some good old outright science-denial due to your ideological biases?

Deal with evidence and argument, instead of playing the 'consensus' cards when those look like they're not going your way.

If you make an argument I'm happy to deal with it.

[Starlight]

We actually did go over that issue previously; I introduced a study showing that children who remained with their "birth parents" (by which the authors meant parent-figures present since before the child's first birthday), did fare developmentally better than those who were raised by "non-birth parents" (including formerly estranged natural parents). If it remains somewhere on my documents drive, I'll find it when I get the chance to return to this with more attention (~8 court documents w/ dozens of supplemental documents strewn over the desk right now).

So there is, apparently, an inherent penalty for an adoptive parent (or parents) when the child is >1 year old. However, that does not translate to an inherent penalty for same-sex partners, as the benefit present in "birth parents" applies to children less than 1 year-old, regardless of whether the parents are natural parents or surrogate parents.

Which boils down to basically a repeat of the finding that family stability matters.

On the subject of adoption, there are two effects that are known (and opposite). One is that adopted children do tend to express concern about their rejection by their birth parents, and tend to feel a certain level of psychological discomfort as a result. The other effect is that parents who seek to adopt a child typically make much better parents than the average parent because (1) they sincerely want the child and the child isn't being born to them by accident, (2) they are at a place in their lives where they have decided they are financially and emotionally ready to support a child, and (3) if the adoption agency has more parents wanting to adopt than children to be adopted it may try to select the 'best' parents for the children.

That second effect (good parenting) outweighs the first (psychological distress), and adopted children do better on average than non-adopted children.

[Paprika]

Paprika,

There is a unanimous consensus among the scientific experts in the field that the issue has been conclusively studied. They're all convinced. If there was some sort of real disagreement within the field, that would be a different matter. But there's simply not. "We emphasize that the parenting abilities of gay men and lesbians—and the positive outcomes for their children—are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree" says the joint submission of 8 national US scientific agencies and groups that deal with the well-being of children.

There is one thing I respect about many of those who patiently (or otherwise) take on YECs in Nat Sci 301: they use arguments and discuss relevant evidence and observations; they do not only point to the consensus as if that settled the matter.

Consensus alone means little if anything when strong ideological biases exist, which is very clear. Deal with evidence and argument, instead of playing the 'consensus' cards when those look like they're not going your way.

[Starlight]

Adrift,

It's a fairly well-known phenomena that gay children will come out of the closet sooner if they feel they are in a supportive environment. Also, obviously, kids will think about their own sexual orientation earlier in life if someone close to them is gay. For these reasons any gay children of same-sex parents are likely to come out at a younger age on average than the children of opposite sex parents. This tends to yield false-positives in studies that try to determine if the children of same-sex parents are more likely to be gay. Because if the study asks all the kids at age 18 if they are gay or not (or asks their parents), their numbers will be skewed as a result of a lot of the kids still being in the closet. What you ideally would want to know is how many are actually gay, not how many tell you they're gay. But that's not something you can really test for - short of coming back decades later and hoping for truthful answers at that point.

The general finding has been that the children of gay parents do not seem more likely to actually be gay - if the question is asked much later in their lives then there appear to be no differences between the two groups. However the gay children of gay parents definitely admit to being gay at a younger age, on average, which is hardly surprising. For this reason most studies of same-sex parenting done these days tend to no longer bother to ask such questions of the children or their parents because it's known that the answers given are false data.


Paprika,

It is the burden of the proponents to establish the so-called 'consensus', especially since you and others are using it to push for significant changes to society. Now you've noted certain flaws in it, so has Starlight (1 study is counted as 15!?), so I don't think you can advocate it 'as is' - as the highly biased experts have presented it in your link.

There is a unanimous consensus among the scientific experts in the field that the issue has been conclusively studied. They're all convinced. If there was some sort of real disagreement within the field, that would be a different matter. But there's simply not. "We emphasize that the parenting abilities of gay men and lesbians—and the positive outcomes for their children—are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree" says the joint submission of 8 national US scientific agencies and groups that deal with the well-being of children.

[Sam]

I'm confused: what was studied? >1 year, or <1 year?

Both; there was found to be no detriment for children with non-natural parents <1 year but detriment to children who lacked two "birth parents" >1 year. So even the presence of two parents for children over 1 year old, according to this study, did not make up for two parents being present at <1 year, natural or adoptive.

In other words, a child who was raised by one "birth parent" until he was 1.5 years old and then two parents thereafter would suffer a penalty in comparison to children raised by two "birth parents".

It was several years ago on this board and the study quickly got lost in Sparko and CP complaining about the authors' use of "birth parents" ... I believe I've remembered it all accurately, though.

[Paprika]

So there is, apparently, an inherent penalty for an adoptive parent (or parents) when the child is >1 year old. However, that does not translate to an inherent penalty for same-sex partners, as the benefit present in "birth parents" applies to children less than 1 year-old

I'm confused: what was studied? >1 year, or <1 year?

[Sam]

It is the burden of the proponents to establish the so-called 'consensus', especially since you and others are using it to push for significant changes to society. Now you've noted certain flaws in it, so has Starlight (1 study is counted as 15!?), so I don't think you can advocate it 'as is' - as the highly biased experts have presented it in your link.

Now, I don't think there is sufficient data to directly establish that there is an inherent detriment. However, I see one possible path to proceed, but as I don't have enough knowledge at this point, I'm not making it at the moment.

If it can be shown that for children with heterosexual parents, being raised by one's birth parents has a significant benefit compared to being adopted or raised by one birth parent and another adult, it would imply that there is some intrinsic benefit to being raised by one's birth parents. This would then cast serious doubt on the idea that being raised by two men or two women has no inherent penalty.

We actually did go over that issue previously; I introduced a study showing that children who remained with their "birth parents" (by which the authors meant parent-figures present since before the child's first birthday), did fare developmentally better than those who were raised by "non-birth parents" (including formerly estranged natural parents). If it remains somewhere on my documents drive, I'll find it when I get the chance to return to this with more attention (~8 court documents w/ dozens of supplemental documents strewn over the desk right now).

So there is, apparently, an inherent penalty for an adoptive parent (or parents) when the child is >1 year old. However, that does not translate to an inherent penalty for same-sex partners, as the benefit present in "birth parents" applies to children less than 1 year-old, regardless of whether the parents are natural parents or surrogate parents.

[Paprika]

(though I again maintain that it is on the detractors to refute the consensus)

It is the burden of the proponents to establish the so-called 'consensus', especially since you and others are using it to push for significant changes to society. Now you've noted certain flaws in it, so has Starlight (1 study is counted as 15!?), so I don't think you can advocate it 'as is' - as the highly biased experts have presented it in your link.

Now, I don't think there is sufficient data to directly establish that there is an inherent detriment. However, I see one possible path to proceed, but as I don't have enough knowledge at this point, I'm not making it at the moment.

If it can be shown that for children with heterosexual parents, being raised by one's birth parents has a significant benefit compared to being adopted or raised by one birth parent and another adult, it would imply that there is some intrinsic benefit to being raised by one's birth parents. This would then cast serious doubt on the idea that being raised by two men or two women has no inherent penalty.

[Sam]

I suppose we come from two different starting points then. I believe that morality and spirituality can be, and often is, tied into whether or not something may be inherently positive or negative. Most Christians I know would probably agree. It doesn't sound like you share that perspective, or if you do, you don't seem to think that one's civic choices ought to reflect their spiritual beliefs, unless they happen to correlate with a secular concern. For a lot of Christians, for a lot theists, searching for a secular-spiritual correlation is meaningless, because they don't always separate the secular and the spiritual into neat little boxes. For a lot of theists, their faith underpins their entire worldview; everything they say, think, and do (and I believe that ought to be the case for Christians). I don't entirely agree with the process of making those sorts of civic choices, but I understand it. Hard to find fault with it. Everyone wants to live in what they believe is the best possible world.

Don't get me wrong — I understand (and share!) the sentiment; it's hard to argue that one's sense of the ideal should not be, in some sense, acted upon. But we can't look at history without seeing just how absolutely awful that sentiment can become when acted upon without substantial checks. Religion, even ideology, that is allowed to "brute force" its way into society has been the source of much harm and evil.

So applying a more secular, general, ethic serves as a brake on the worst aspects of spiritualism, religion, ideology, and personal morality. It allows a pluralistic society to remain as such, rather than becoming a theocracy or simply a society that is bound to the non-empirical mores of a particular creed or philosophy. It allows a freer expression of belief, with the understanding that personal beliefs, so long as they do not inflict undue harm on others, should be respected.

It's a trade-off, for sure. And it wouldn't/won't be necessary in an ideal society, like the New Jerusalem. But until we get that kind of infallible leadership, I very much prefer a system that doesn't allow for unchecked "morality".

[Adrift]

I suppose we come from two different starting points then. I believe that morality and spirituality can be, and often is, tied into whether or not something may be inherently positive or negative. Most Christians I know would probably agree. It doesn't sound like you share that perspective, or if you do, you don't seem to think that one's civic choices ought to reflect their spiritual beliefs, unless they happen to correlate with a secular concern. For a lot of Christians, for a lot theists, searching for a secular-spiritual correlation is meaningless, because they don't always separate the secular and the spiritual into neat little boxes. For a lot of theists, their faith underpins their entire worldview; everything they say, think, and do (and I believe that ought to be the case for Christians). I don't entirely agree with the process of making those sorts of civic choices, but I understand it. Hard to find fault with it. Everyone wants to live in what they believe is the best possible world.

[Sam]

You would consider all of these to be sexual orientations? Would you also find adult incestual attraction, and polyamory non-normative, detrimental sexual orientations?

I'm using the term "orientation" loosely here, as if we're just talking about orientations, we're just talking about the Kinsey Scale.

Incest is a harder one to state from a psychological or sociological standpoint, as it can certainly lead to detrimental outcomes but is unlikely to do so in our society. So I wouldn't consider it inherently or necessarily detrimental (possible immoral but that's a different category, as explained below). Polyamory has existed throughout history without inherent detriments so I would argue the same for that. I do not think, apart from the structure of current laws dealing with spousal benefits, that polyamory should be illegal.

So, are you saying that, by its nature, a spiritual concern cannot be an objective concern? Can spiritual concerns ever be the basis for secular law? Are not most secular laws based on moral imperatives, and are moral imperatives subjective or objective? If objective, then from whence do they come?

Spiritual concerns, insofar as they correlate with secular concerns, can be a (relatively) objective concern — it is morally abhorrent and ethically bad to murder; both spiritualists and secularists have a shared concern in preventing murder in a society. But where spiritual concerns cannot be significantly correlated with secular concerns, they do not have a place in a pluralistic, secular law. Unless there's some more universal, secular reason why non-kosher meat is bad for society, we should not enact laws banning non-kosher meat.

While I do love me some Kant, I don't believe that moral imperatives exist in a plainly-accessible form. Any road, what is "moral" and what is "legal" are distinct and should remain distinct. The latter should be based on some empirical measure of harm done, the former need not be.

[Adrift]

Yes, I would consider pedophilia, necrophilia, or bestiality both non-normative and detrimental, for example.

You would consider all of these to be sexual orientations? Would you also find adult incestual attraction, and polyamory non-normative, detrimental sexual orientations?

Religious and spiritual concerns are obviously valid but they don't come into play when discussing developmental parity. We're looking for relatively objective measures of maturity and success in these sociological studies, not whether a particular behavior is anathema to a particular creed. Those can be valid concerns, of course, but they're not a basis for secular law.

So, are you saying that, by its nature, a spiritual concern cannot be an objective concern? Can spiritual concerns ever be the basis for secular law? Are not most secular laws based on moral imperatives, and are moral imperatives subjective or objective? If objective, then from whence do they come?

[Sam]

Do you believe that its possible that some may find inherent issues with a sexual orientation without concluding that the sexual persuasion makes one inherently inferior?

Sure but unless we're talking about a deficiency of some sort, then unique issues inherent in a sexual orientation would not amount to a developmental handicap.

I think you might get some push back that it's non-normative in the same way as having green eyes. Can you think of any non-normative sexual orientation one might possess that may be detrimental in some way?

Also, outside of secular concerns with certain sexual orientations, what of those religious or spiritual ones? Does that play any part at all in what one may find inherently problematic? Should it?

Yes, I would consider pedophilia, necrophilia, or bestiality both non-normative and detrimental, for example.

Religious and spiritual concerns are obviously valid but they don't come into play when discussing developmental parity. We're looking for relatively objective measures of maturity and success in these sociological studies, not whether a particular behavior is anathema to a particular creed. Those can be valid concerns, of course, but they're not a basis for secular law.