The "Impact" of Iowa Marriage Equality - Findings From Evidence.

One important feature of Judge Walker's verdict in the Prop 8 trial was his finding that the case against marriage equality rested on claims, of the "harm" done by same sex marriage and the supposed threat to children is based on no evidence whatsoever. The substantial evidence that does exist on gay parents, and the experience from Manhattan and the Netherlands where marriage is well established, is that there is indeed no demonstrable harm - to between sex marriages, or to the children of same-sex couples.

Now yet another independent survey, this one from  Iowa, shows the same finding. "Iowawatch" is an online news service for The Iowa Center for Public Affairs Journalism, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan news service. Their researchers conducted interviews with married couples and professional experts, and examined extensive published urnal articles, marriage statistics, census data, polls and court rulings.

The conclusion? There is no "harm" - at least no more than from the between sense marriages they so closely resemble. These are extracts from an extensive report at Press Citizen:

Natural Law, Natural Sex, Natural Families.

A favourite argument used by the religious right against homoerotic relationships, and by the Vatican theologians against any form of sexual expression outside of marriage and not open to making babies, is that such sexual activities are "against nature", and that the "purpose" of sex is procreation. Well, the people making these claims have never considered the actual evidence from, well, you know - "Nature" itself, which shows the exact opposite.  In a famous exchange, Anita Bryant once remarked that the things that homosexuals do were so disgusting that "even barnyard animals wouldn't do it." When it was pointed out to her that actually, barnyard and other animals do "do it",  as is well known to farmers, she simply replied, "Well that still don't make it right". No, and it don't make it wrong, either.  On sexual ethics, "Nature" is morally neutral.

"Anita Bryant, Reality Denier"

Some time ago I embarked on an investigation (which still continues) into just what we can learn from "nature" about sexuality and natural sex, reading up on sexual practices as observed in the animal kingdom, and also in non-Western and pre-industrial human societies from different periods and geographic regions. The results have been truly bewildering, and the time has come to share with you some of my findings and conclusions. In particular, there is clearly no single pattern of sexuality that can possibly be described as "natural" in all societies, human or animal.  What is "natural" depends entirely on culturally determined social practices, which vary extraordinarily.

In modern Western debates about gay marriage, we often hear arguments about "traditional" marriage, as based on the Bible, or on "Judaeo-Christian values". The Biblical family was headed by a male patriarch, who controlled an assortment of wives, concubines, children and slaves, as well as his adult sons and their wives.

We commonly assume that most people are either "heterosexual" (the majority) or "homosexual" in orientation. But in many societies, men may be engage in sex with both men and women, either sequentially, at different phases of their lives, or at the same time. (In Chinese culture, there has always been powerful social expectations that men should marry and raise children - but that in no way prevents them taking male lovers as well. In a famous Chinese painting, two men are engaged in erotic play, while the wife of one watches from behind a screen. )

We assume that in a "traditional" family, the husband is male, the "wife" is female. In many traditional African cultures, numerous ethnographic studies have shown that the "husband" is the one with the wealth and the power. Where a woman was able to acquire sufficient wealth and could pay the bride-price, it was entirely acceptable for her  to marry wives, and take on the role of "husband". (In these families, procreation and child-bearing were necessarily arranged outside of the family - but were raised inside it, and recognised the female head of the family as "father". In one remarkable instance, Nzinga was a woman who came to the throne by military skill - but only men could be kings, so necessarily she was accepted as male. As king, she required a harem of wives - but as she was entirely heterosexual in orientation, she had no need of female wives, and instead kept a harem of male wives.(“Africa’s Female Kings and husbands”). Elsewhere in Africa, some wealthy men also included a male or two among their wives, valuing their strength for certain household tasks.

Nor do all cultures think only in terms of two genders. Commonly in South Asia, North America, and in some parts of Africa, societies accepted as a distinctive third gender biological males who took on female roles, or females who took on male roles (possibly but not necessarily included the corresponding sexual roles.) In the animal kingdom, especially among fish, there are many species with more than one gender, or where the physical appearances of some biologically male individual males resembles that of females or vice versa, or where individuals quite literally change biological sex, in an animal counterpart to human cross-dressers and transsexuals.

We also tend to assume that same sex interactions, where they occur, apply to a minority of individuals, or to a relatively brief period in their youths, before settling down to "normal" married life. But in some New Guinea societies, "natural" sex requires that as young boys, they first go through a period whereby they act as recipient partners in sex with older boys, because it is believed that the essence of manly virtue is contained in the semen - which they need ingest in regular doses before they can become real men. As they grow older, they adopt the active role in sex with younger boys, completely avoiding heterosexual intercourse until they are strong and manly enough to withstand the "debilitating" effects of women that they will be exposed to in marriage. In one specific group, the combined period of partnership with males typically lasts about thirty years, before he marries at around forty. In this culture, homosexual sex is certainly a far greater portion of a man's life-long sexual experience than heterosexual experiences. For them, it is homosexual actions that are "natural".

The Vatican claims that homosexual "act" lead people away from God.  Many societies take the exact opposite view, believing that "homosexuals" generally, and the third gender exemplars in particular, have extraordinary spiritual gifts. Frequently, it is they who will take on the roles of religious leaders or spiritual guides. (Is it any surprise that a disproportionately high proportion of Catholic and Anglican priests are believed to be gay?) In some places, this association of spirituality and male-male sex combines with a variant of the New Guinea practice - young men become  sexual partners of religious leaders in order to ingest their spiritual wisdom.

We also often equate “masculine”, macho virtues with heterosexuality, and homosexuality with effeminacy. Among both humans and animals, this is not always so. For the ancient Greeks, the Japanese samurai, and many others, homosexuality was especially associated with the military. There have been times even in European history where “effeminate” dandyism was characteristic of rampant heterosexuality. Among bighorn sheep, most rams are exclusively homosexual in their activities, and the few that have heterosexual intercourse display remarkable submissive, behaviour – that in humans we might describe as “wimpish”.

It is also simply not true that in the natural world, even heterosexual sex is exclusively directed at procreation. Non procreative sexual activity is commonplace, including full intercourse during pregnancy, immediately after giving birth, or outside fertile periods Some primates females reaching sexual maturity, and begin sexual activities, several years before becoming fertile and capable of giving birth. Also common are  mounting behaviour without penetration or ejaculation, oral sex and masturbation (alone or with another). Some animals even make dildos and masturbation aids – or use natural objects for the purpose.

So what is the “purpose” of sex in nature?

Writing about Bonobo Chimps, Joan Roughgarden puts it neatly, in describing "at least six" situations that lead to sex :

1. Sex facilitates sharing (for example, reducing conflicts over food supplies)
2. Sex is used for reconciliation after a dispute
3. Sex helps to integrate new arrivals into a group
4. Sex helps to form coalitions
5. Sex is candy - females sometimes barter sexual favours to obtain gifts of food from males
6. "Oh, I almost forgot - sex is used for reproduction"

Recognising the diversity of sexual and gender expressions in “nature” is not a licence for a code of “anything goes”. There still remains a need for a coherent system of sexual ethics, but the study of “nature” does not help us to find one. There simply is no sexual “law of nature”. To construct sexual ethics, we must look elsewhere.

See Also:

Africa's Male Wives

Africa's Female Kings and Husbands

Natural Law, Natural Families: Acquiring Many Virtue

Gay Soldiers? Role Models, at the Foundation of Democracy.

Gays in the Military: Japan

Our Queer Primate Cousins

Animals Use Sex Toys, Too

Same Sex Parents, Furred and Feathered

Natural Law, Laysan’s Albatross,  and the Question of Evidence

The Wildlife Rainbow

Queer Bonobos: Sex As Conflict Resolution

Exclusive Heterosexuality Unnatural?

Bighorn Rams: Macho Homos, Wimpish Heteros


Books:

Bagemihl, Bruce: Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (Stonewall Inn Editions)

Crompton, Louis: Homosexuality and Civilization

Naphy, William G: Born to be Gay: A History of Homosexuality (Revealing History)

Roughgarden, Joan: Evolution’s Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People

Sommer, Volker and Vasey, Paul: Homosexual Behaviour in Animals: An Evolutionary Perspective

The Fallacy of the Church Push Against Gay Adoption

In Australia, the NSW parliament has a bill before it which would legalise gay adoption. The churches are outraged, and pushing hard against the measure, or asking for special treatment. One Australian church agency is asking for exemption  from the non-discrimination clause. Anglicare argues that adoption should not be about politics and the "rights" of gay couples, but about the best interests of the child.

In Mexico, the Supreme Court this week will follow last’s week’s decision on gay marriage in Mexico City with a consideration of gay adoption (and also gay marriage nationally). In the US, GOP candidates for the governorships of Nevada and Georgia are proposing to follow Florida and outlaw gay adoption. In the UK, where the issue is supposedly settled in law, the church is continuing to fight a rearguard action to have its own agencies exempted. What do all these have in common?

A total absence of evidence.

In California's extended trial over gay marriage, the opponents argued that gay marriage was injurious to children, because kids need "one mom and one dad" - but their own supposed expert witness conceded there was no evidence to support his case. But the “expert” was entirely lacking in academic credentials, and the judge ruled that his evidence was no more than opinion.

In Florida, Bill McCollum then the AG, hired “expert witness” George Rekers at vast expense to argue the case in court. He too is entirely lacking in credentials, and has since become a laughing-stock for his travels with a hired male prostitute. (I am pleased to note that ever sine the Rekers story broke, McCollum’s candidacy for state governor has been going rapidly down the toilet.)   

In Georgia, when Karen Handel was asked by an Atlanta TV reporter why she thought gay parents aren’t legitimate, she replied, “Because I don’t.”

In the UK last year, bishops reacted angrily when Terry Prendergast, a child care professional with strong links to the church, stated that there was no evidence that children are harmed by having same sex parents.

Now, here’s the thing.

I absolutely agree with Anglicare that adoption decisions should be based entirely on the best interests of children, placing them with the best parents available. They should not be based on the supposed rights of gay couples - but nor should they be based on religious dogma. Don't they get it? Sometimes, the best available parents are gay.

Abundant scientific research has shown that.

In the California trial,  Judge Walker carefully considered a mass of scientific evidence, and found that same sex couples are at least as capable as any others of making good parents as any other - and in some cases, are even better. (Even in the animal world, research has shown in some species, same -sex couples make better parents.)

That’s at the global level, for couples in general – but in ability as parents, not all couples are equal. Some opposite sex parents are dramatically less able than the ideal, which  is why some kids come into care in the first place. Some gay couples are better than others.  Nobody is asking that all gay couples be given a “right” to adopt, any more than straight couples have such a right.  All we ask is that we be considered along with other couples, so that children may be placed with the best parents available.

Gay adoption – it’s in the best interests of the child.

Catholics Support Gay Adoption.

In the US, the struggle over adoption by lesbian or gay families concerns those states which prohibit it, either by state law, or (in Florida) by a complete constitutional ban. In the UK, where discrimination against gay or lesbian prospective parents is prohibited by law, the battle is entirely different. Here, the Catholic Church is seeking an exemption from the terms of the law for one of its agencies.

My friend Celia Gardiner, who as a lawyer and as chair of the Roman Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, is heavily involved in correspondence with the Charities Commission on the Church's application. I fear I have become totally lost in trying to follow the legal niceties - so don't ask. However, I have undertaken to assist with passing on links to empirical evidence to contradict the claims on which the bishops base their case, so that I can happily share with you.

I have previously pointed out that in claiming that "Catholics" or "the Catholic Church" oppose gay marriage, the bishops (American or British) are being somewhat economical with the truth. It may be what the bishops oppose, it may be what they want the rest of us to oppose - but we do not simply mould our beliefs to episcopal diktat. Contrary to the Vatican line, most American Catholics do not believe that same sex relationships are morally unacceptable, and overall, are in favour or recognizing same sex marriage (that's full civil marriage, not just civil unions).

I have now tracked down similar information specifically on adoption, and guess what? the bishops may oppose it, but Catholics as a whole are in favour. Now note, please, that the data are two years old, from 2oo8 (prior to the US election). All the evidence is that attitudes have moved on since then. For the case of the UK, which prompted my investigation, public attitudes are generally more supportive. Any claim by the bishops that "the Catholic Church" opposes same sex adoption is almost certainly not factually correct. ?

Source: Pew Research, 2008