seems to be dying down so I don't think any more extended remarks or argumentation are really necessary, so this post will lay out some of the loose ends that should have received more attention than they did. I am also losing interest in this debate and would like to move on to other things, so this entry will be kept to a minimum.
Now that the two camps have retreated to their respective corners and forsaken further dialogue with one another, I want to quickly consider the peripheral arguments that began to appear in the Note's subsequent discussion. As intuitions and critical reflection began to clash with the shoddy statistical gestures and crypto-religious posturings of the note, the supporters of Pro8 began adapting their tactics away from arguing with nonsensical flimflam to the delightfully ambiguous "evidence" of biology on all matters homosexual.
(added emphasis designated with italics)
Each one of these statements makes a specific "scientific" claim in support of banning gay marriage. These claims are (if it's not obvious already: (1) Being homosexual is a conscious choice, and is not significantly influenced by one's biology, (2) Humans are (perfectly)
designed [biologically] to engage in heterosexual behavior, and (3) Homosexual parents are proven to be a destructive element in the development of children.
(1) As a general note, the public's and media's fascination for biological research focusing on traits of social note is almost universally continuous with a lack of respect towards interpretation of its results and also towards placing that research in the context of its genesis. Biology, it may shock many people to learn, is a very different kind of science than physics, whose portrait pervades the classical folk-understanding of "science". Far from discovering universal laws and deriving conclusions of relatively high certainty, biological research is marked by its emphasis on local phenomena that are necessarily and inextricably embedded in a system or systems that in turn are also deeply interconnected with further systems and influences. To abstract away from this fact at all, let alone for the sake of establishing the legitimacy of a political agenda, is an abuse of science and morally shameful.
The importance of this should be immediately clear with respect to (1) above. The poster of this statement is obviously not familiar with research concerning, e.g., genetic expression. In most of the conversations I have with people concerning genetics and personal traits, there is a pervading tendency to think of genes as 0/1 switches or some related mechanism by which traits are inherited, and expressed, as simple Mendelian traits (cheek dimples, eye color). Hence if you have "the gene", you're chained to causality. This, in some cases, is the birth of genetic determinism. Conversely, if there is no gene for it, or you don't have it, then it is not biologically influenced at all. In its extreme form, this leads to cultural determinism.
I don't want to review the arguments or history of the real complexities of gene expression but I will observe that social agenda is directing the argumentation here, and certainly has nothing to do with the literature on the "cause" of being homosexual. The minority of thinkers vainly (?) trying to hold a more sophisticated middle position between the determinisms are often swept aside by the parties so as not to interfere with the affirmation of their respective conclusion. Any critical comment on this topic would not deviate far from the blanket (yet intellectually honest) statement "WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE".
There's another reason for avoiding any long description of how genetics figures into personal traits. Namely, it is
irrelevant to the moral aspect of this debate. Human rights should not be granted on the basis of biology, nor on the basis of interpretations of biological reasoning. Any possible metric of evaluation must presuppose some framework by which to assess the thing in question as "right" or "wrong"; invariably, this metric in social debates emerges in the pernicious form of
normalcy. As intractable as it is to find measures in establishing the norm in the biological realm (which is usually geared towards simply understanding something), it is downright hopeless to try and find such a thing in a social context (which is oriented towards differentiating people as "right" or "wrong"), at least one with such flared passions.
In reality the derivation of social norms from biological research is one of the most virulent sins committed by those whose interests lie in influencing societal policy. Here the specters of eugenics, racial and social classification derived from IQ test performance, and sociobiology emerge into our awareness to remind us of the iniquities that accompany such enterprises. This point is made decisively by Richard Lewontin et al. (1984):
"Pressure to conform to social norms, and institutions that propagate and reinforce these norms, are, of course, characteristic of all human societies. In advanced...societies, the norm becomes an ideological weapon in its own right, foreshadowed by Huxley's Brave New World and Orwell's 1984 but cloaked in the benign language of those who only wish to help, to advise, but not to control and manipulate. Let us be clear: norms are statistical artifacts: they are not biological realities. Biology is not committed to bell-shaped curves."Far from establishing moral superiority in citing the norm to dispose of gay marriage, the Pro8 supporters have simply further demonstrated their intolerant conceit. I talked about this issue in the last post.
...
(2) Inferences of design in biological features, and the perfection of this design, should be a puzzling observation with which one may be confronted.
When one, however, reads within the text in the quote above the fluidity between religious and biological reasoning along with this designation of "perfection", we may surely forgive the reader's palm involuntarily reaching slowly reaching for his or her face. Regarding perfection in biological design, figure 1 best summarizes my opinion on the topic.
Additionally, the writer of that quote also lacks the imagination to consider whether homosexuals also have the perfect bodies for engaging in sexual acts with their partners. I think he might be wrong about that too, but I'm not going to think about that too hard.
Figure 1: Perfection in biological design.
...
(3) Finally, regarding the notion in the third quote above that "science is beginning to define what religion has taught all along" (i.e. that same-sex parents are harmful to children), it should hardly surprise the reader that I am equally unmoved by its claim. The article it cites is a wolf-in-sheep's-wool of sorts in that it begins by qualifying its content by stating that:
"Data on long-term outcomes for children placed in homosexual households are very limited and the available evidence reveals grave concerns. Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables."However, it's conservative agenda-driven motivation is nonetheless laid bare immediately in the midst of this empty gesture towards methodological honesty. Directly after this statement the authors demand that:
"Childrearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in a home with two heterosexual parents versus a home with a single parent. Therefore, the burden is on the proponents of homosexual parenting to prove that moving further away from the heterosexual parenting model is appropriate and safe for children."
...
"Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples. Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years. Homosexual men and women are reported to be inordinately promiscuous involving serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed "committed relationships." Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness, substance abuse, suicidal tendencies, and shortened life spans."source:
American College of Pediatricians (
2004)
...
Oh my. This is very convenient, at least for the Pro8 crowd. It looks like we really are putting our children in grave danger when they are brought up in same-sex couple households. But then again, maybe not. Given the long list of atrocious flaws in the "scientific" evidence offered in the "20 arguments" I begin to wonder if sentences like "critical flaws [in experimental design]" really has any meaning for the pro8 crowd other than the emotional appeal of
sounding "scientific" in its accusations. In a field where there is limited, or very flawed, data, the qualification of such harsh conclusions hardly seems to fit for the label "consistently indicated".
If the person who posted this link on Tyson's note had taken just a few minutes to check out other respectable "independent organizations", he would have found that such politically-charged conclusions are not worth the label of "scientific"
whatsoever. Consider what other such organizations have said regarding same-sex parents:
"
Current research shows that children with gay and lesbian parents do not differ from children with heterosexual parents in their emotional development or in their relationships with peers and adults. It is the quality of the parent/child relationship and not the parent’s sexual orientation that has an effect on a child’s development. Contrary to popular belief, children of lesbian, gay, or transgender parents: - Are not more likely to be gay than children with heterosexual parents.
- Are not more likely to be sexually abused.
- Do not show differences in whether they think of themselves as male or female (gender identity).
- Do not show differences in their male and female behaviors (gender role behavior)."
Source: American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (August 2006)
"Children growing up in same-sex parental households do not necessarily have differences in self-esteem, gender identity, or emotional problems from children growing up in heterosexual parent homes."
Source: WebMD, summarizing study results from several projects (2005)
"A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes."
Source: American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) (2002)
" Studies have shown that children with gay and/or lesbian parents are ultimately just as happy with themselves and their own gender as are their friends with heterosexual parents. Children whose parents are homosexual show no difference in their choice of friends, activities, or interests compared to children whose parents are heterosexual. As adults, their career choices and lifestyles are similar to those of children raised by heterosexual parents. Research comparing children raised by homosexual parents to children raised by heterosexual parents has found no developmental differences in intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, or peer popularity between them. Children raised by homosexual parents can and do have fulfilling relationships with their friends as well as romantic relationships later on."
Source:
AAP (March 2007)
It seems there is little consensus on the "scientific" (actually,
medical) perspective[s]. I can claim no knowledge on whether or not same-sex parents will necessarily harm a child's psychological development, but I am at least aware that the literature calls for much more restraint in condemning same-sex parenting. The only thing I could think of that does represent a challenge to such children is the ostracism and intolerance that they may encounter as a result of the hounding and belligerence of the families in support of Prop8; however, this hardly calls for a moratorium on allowing homosexual couples to raise children. The puritanical regimentation that a child may experience in a Mormon family suggests itself to me to be harmful to their psychological development. But then again, I have no data to support such a polemical attitude, and I have no intent on pushing such an agenda.
Conclusion:
If it somehow wasn't clear from the content of these three posts, I damningly condemn the Pro8 position of Tyson and his colleagues on the Proposition 8 debate, and gay marriage in general. This is a text book example of intolerance motivated by religious belief, and should serve as a reminder that the values we all claim to endorse are most viciously assaulted by those who claim so fervently to be their guardians.
In reality, the certainty of their "universal" truths begin and end with the individual who buys into them. They have nothing to do with me, with other people, nor with the nature of the world. In a rabid blindness these people call their arrogance "faith" and derive an unending stream of arbitrary judgment on whoever their institution so uncritically labels "sinner". The content of these Pro8 posts are caustic to human dignity and they should be ashamed of the Paleozoic alchemy that they attempt to pass off as fact. That they additionally have the nerve to call themselves tolerant cries for the judgment of
hypocrisy.
I also find it fascinating that such a group grasps so emphatically,
and in such an unsophisticated manner, at scientific research in order to push a politico-religious agenda. This is fascinating because it immediately begs the question of how they stand on other scientific issues at large; evolution, stem cell research, GMOs, etc. If it is anywhere near the conservative religious opinion re creationism, it is noteworthy that their vitriolic attacks turn so suddenly into open arms in the name of spreading the word.
Most of Tyson's colleagues (and Tyson himself) are Mormons. As unwilling as they are to comment on the significance of their perspective
as Mormons, I think it is undeniable that this implies religious, social, and political influences that cannot be ignored. In one pitiful maneuver, Tyson censored one of my posts for including a link to "anti-mormon" literature, which can be found
here. This OpEd was written by a Mormon who felt that LDS (the Mormon church) had failed to learn from its own history of non-traditional weddings in its condemnation of gay matrimony. He said of that article, and my posting, in personal communication:
"I read your link, and many others like it. I have done my share of research, trust me. It's like I said before, there are lots of truths in what she mentioned...but like a lot of things, some people put their own spin on it. Some of the most anti-mormon people were mormon at one point, that's how it usually goes."No. That's how
opinion "goes." The atmosphere of censorship in this FB discussion, in addition to the content of the dscussion, has had a chilling effect on me. Indeed, this chill continues to propagate, as I have recently reread the note's discussion, and was shocked to see that many of the comments (including a large number of my posts) were cropped from the discussion. [I have two screen caps of the discussion before and after this censorship, if anyone is interested] For all the respect I still feel for my several Mormon friends, I am left asking myself the question: is this censoring of others' opinions the act of a single person or is it indicative of something more general? I have no conclusive evidence to answer this.
Addendum:
To my homosexual friends: you have my sympathies. I have approached this topic as one of intellectual interest, and I am fully aware that my technical outrage must be belittled by your personal outrage, as my own life is untouched by this development in any concrete way. I hope you profitted from reading my posts.
