I hope (and I believe) this debate is hardly over for the left. Recent votes on marriage amendments prove that the left is divided on this issue while the right is more unified.
When I maintain that a social scientific consensus exists as to optimal family formation I am not trying to be partisan or foster bigotry.

I don’t think much of those who label competent, fair minded research & scholarship as either “far right wing” or “homophobic”. I personally read all sides of this debate and try to be as fair minded as I am capable.

It is not unfair to acknowledge that the traditional family has historically been considered a pre-political foundational social institution. Philosophers as far back as Paracles have noted the preeminence of the family as a bulwark against state tyranny.

Free thinking people know that the social experiment of same-sex marriage marks both the logical extension of the sexual revolution and a definitive step in normalizing (in both law & culture) central axioms of that revolution.

At this point allow me to point to two timely examples of warranted hesitation towards these ends.

http://left2right.typepad.com/main/2006/08/who_are_parents.html#more

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/06/nyregion/06gender.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The social consequences of de-gendering marriage and separating it from its necessary connection to procreation should not be undertaken lightly. Neither leftist utopian ideals, not egalitarian motif’s nor political partisanship should stop independent minds on the left from fully exploring the ramifications of such changes.

We all know the power of orthodoxies and dogmas. We all have a prejudices and particularities. We all know about the power of ideas to fundamentally alter the way people approach reality. And we all know that consequences, both foreseen & unforeseen are bound to follow.

I hope I am of some help in prodding the free inquirer within us all.

“(Are all songs on children’s shows or this show in particular about “big deal” issues?)”

This show has a habit of coming up with ideas for songs and showing that it isn’t a big deal to be this way. They started in 1980, and since I was born in 1979 I, like Ingrid, grew up on the stuff. There were songs on divorce, on moving house, on not wanting to grow up. One of the biggest hits they had in the eighties was actualy a song about doing the dishes and the one referred to above: “Op een onbewoond eiland”, in which a girl sings about wanting to live on a desert island, because everything goes wrong.

One more thing: most of the ideas for the songs of this particular show actualy come from children. They have been asking children for years now to write letters, or even complete lyrics for songs, and these are used for ideas.

25% of American families. We all know some of them, of course. Happy kids, dedicated parents. But we know some others, too, don’t we? Battered wives, abused kids. There are plenty of messed up “optimal” families. Even so, without a legal complaint from one of the spouses or proof of serious child abuse, the state does NOTHING to prevent or end marriages like that.

Even if this society barred all non-optimal marriages—which it most certainly does not—many same-sex-led families are clearly better than many of Fitz’s “optimal” families.

The only thing that can account for society’s tolerance of such a wide range of families and so, so many dysfunctional ones and its refusal to recognize same-sex-led families is… prejudice. Could it be any more clear?

This must be the same person who has been recently trolling around the NYTimes Gay Rights message board/forum using the handle “Fitz6g” spouting the same nonsense as here.

It’s amusing. NARTH has been totally discredited—its slide into irrelevancy marked most recently by its posting a pro-slavery article on its web site and its being taken over by interests of the Mormon church.

Satinover, regardless of the plethora of degrees listed on his curriculum vitae, showed his nuttiness about a decade ago when he published a book that touted the so-called “Bible codes.” Of course the belief that “Bible codes” prove the veracity of the Bible has been roundly discredited, because similar “codes” have been shown in many other works.

Finally, Fitz’s citation of “Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, 2001. “(How) Does The Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?”, American Sociological Review 66:159, 166, to show that “there are no studies of child development based on random, representative samples of [same-sex couple] families” is funny as heck. It should be apparent that it is not necessary to find either “random” or “representative” samples of same-sex couples when comparing parentage of same-sex couples to parentage of opposite-sex couples. And that is true even if it were possible to collect a “representative” or “random” sample of same-sex couples. What is desirable is to find a convenience sample of same-sex couples who are parenting, and compare their parenting to similarly-situated opposite-sex couples who are parenting.

BTW, a couple of days ago, I caught “Fitz6g” over at the NYTimes board copying material from the nutty far right wing Heritage Foundation and the even nuttier Maggie Gallagher’s “Institute for Marriage” web sites.

Paul, I don’t think the song is making a big deal out of the issue per se, it’s just the topic of yet another song on this kids’ show. (Are all songs on children’s shows or this show in particular about “big deal” issues?)

The big deal is that in some places such a song is not a big deal while in other places it’s hard to imagine that it would be played at all (precisely because it would be a big deal to a lot of people).

And here I was thinking that the song struck me mostly for making a big deal out of something that the songwriter was claiming wasn’t a big deal.

(steve writes)
“By the way, if you meant that “Trojan Couch” link to be taken seriously, you have confirmed both that you are a homophobe and that you are interested not in the truth but in promoting noxious homophobic propaganda of the most transparently moronic kind.”
You mean the article written by
Jeffrey B. Satinover, M.S., M.D1

Presently conducting research in complex physical and economic systems in the department of physics and the condensed matter physics laboratory at the University of Nice, France. The present work reports on research conducted while teaching constitutional law in the department of politics at Princeton University and physics at Yale University, and consulting to groups writing briefs in various state and federal Supreme Court cases.

DEGREES:
S.B., Humanities & Science, M.I.T., 1971
Ed.M. Clinical Psychology & Public Practice, Harvard University, 1973
M.D., University of Texas, 1982
M.S., Physics, Yale University, 2003
LICENSES:
Connecticut (Medicine)
BOARD CERTIFICATION:
Psychiatry (American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology)
OTHER:
Fellowship Year in Child Psychiatry
Added Qualifications in Geriatric Psychiatry
(American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology)

http://www.satinover.com/cv.htm

(yep- what a moron!!)

But Steve – you also have friends in high places..

AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE PUBLISHES PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF FAMILY DISSOLUTION

http://www.ali.org/ali/pr051502.htm

LAW COMMISSION OF CANADA REPORT: BEYOND CONJUGALITY

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0172.htm

Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision For All Our Families and Relationships

http://www.beyondmarriage.org/

Let me know if you support the legal approaches promoted by these organizations.
This will aid the discussion by pinpointing the philosophical division at the heart of our argument.

By the way, if you meant that “Trojan Couch” link to be taken seriously, you have confirmed both that you are a homophobe and that you are interested not in the truth but in promoting noxious homophobic propaganda of the most transparently moronic kind.

http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf

Are you gay steve?

“the methods used in these studies are so flawed that the studies prove nothing.”

Chase-Lansdale, P.L., L.S. Wakschlag and J. Brooks-Gunn (1995), “A Psychological Perspective on the Development of Caring in Children and Youth: the Role of the Family”, Journal of Adolescence 18:515-556.
Cialdini, R.B., M. Schaller, D. Houlihan, K. Arps, J. Fultz and A.L. Beaman (1987), “Empathy-based Helping: Is It Selflessly or Selfishly Motivated?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52:749-758.
Cialdini, R.B. (1991), “Altruism or Egoism? That is (still) the Question”, Psychological Inquiry 2:124-126.
Cialdini, R.B., S.L. Brown, C. Luce, B.P. Lewis and S.L. Neuberg (1997), “Reinterpreting the Empathy-Altruism Relationship: When One into One Equals Oneness”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73:481-49

http://www.fatherhood.org/doclibrary/delinquency.pdf