After President Obama granted limited amnesty to illegal immigrants who had entered the United States before the age of sixteen, a few barbs about how this indicated the rise of an “Imperial Presidency” were directed his way.
What struck me, however, was just how few and muted these were. Not many commentators were prepared to give the accusation full voice. This was in marked contrast with how fervently George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon endured similar charges.
An Imperial President presumably rules like a king. He does what he wants irrespective of congressional actions. When thwarted by legislators who prove resistant to such policies as the Dream Act, he implements them anyway. He does not allow our creaky democratic machinery to get in the way of what he considers best.
This is the very definition of what Obama did with respect to immigration. Instead of seeking relief for young illegals through legislation, he issued a decree directing the agencies under his command to enforce the rules—not as written—but as he wished they had been.
Of course, Barack warned us that he might do something of the sort about a year ago. He then told the nation that he would not allow obstructionist politicians to interfere with this plans. He would not wait for others to do what was right, but would do so on his own hook. Necessity could brook no delay.
So why isn’t the public outraged? Why aren’t people rushing to the barricades to defend the Constitution? Have ordinary citizens been anesthetized to presidential overreaching because there has been so much of it? What’s one more executive edict when so many have poured forth from environmental and labor agencies?
Maybe, however, the lack of indignation reflects the ho-hum attitude of Democrats and the mainstream media. Wasn’t it true that Nixon’s extra-legal initiatives become a scandal only after the media and moderate Republicans became concerned that he was breaking the law?
Nowadays the media are nearly silent no matter what the president does. Rather than make his look bad, they scarcely mention it when his government is sued for violating the Catholic Church’s first amendment rights. And as for the Democrats, they applaud his skill in putting Republicans on the defensive.
I have long since come to the conclusion that mainstream reporters and knee-jerk liberals have few principles. As long as their side triumphs, they have little concern about how this is achieved.
Yet the sad fact is that they may win this round. Barack may get to attract Hispanic voters via a transparently political ploy he blatantly describes as non-political. With crocodile tears in his eyes, he tells us this move is only fair, although last year he said it was beyond his powers.
Only what are Romney and the Republicans to do? If they oppose this policy too forcefully, it would be like kicking the Hispanics in the groin. Or if they go to the rooftops to scream that they aren’t going to tolerate such despotism any longer, they may appear as impotent as Peter Finch in the movie Network.
I am reminded of another Imperial Presidency—that of Andrew Jackson. Often parodied in the press as King Andrew, he frequently implemented policies of his own devising. His attitude was best reflected in a comment following a Supreme Court ruling he loathed.
After John Marshall and his colleagues ruled in Worcester v. Georgia that a Georgia law affecting the Cherokee Indians was unconstitutional, Jackson said “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”
Barack Obama seems to have a similar attitude. Because almost nothing can be done between today and Election Day to neutralize his decision, he is daring his opponents to do anything. He assumes that if he wins reelection, he will be able to make his fiat stick, but if he doesn’t, it won’t matter because he will be gone.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Saturday, June 23, 2012
All Politicians Lie?
“All politicians lie!”
By now I have heard this mantra thousands of times. Almost always it is issued for the mouths of liberal students trying to defend the latest deceit offered up by a liberal politician. Often nowadays, the person in question is the president of the United States—but his minions are also on the line.
The next thing I usually hear is that Bush lied too! Or that Republicans and/or conservatives are liars. If I suggest that not all politicians lie to the same degree, this may be acknowledged, but is treated as an incidental fact.
In contemplating how common this scenario is, several things strike me. The first is that these students, and the politicians whose example they are following, have become addicted to a strategy that most mothers warn against. They are essentially saying that: if everyone does it, it is okay.
Instead of defending a particular lie, they decide to accuse their opponents of the vice of which they stand accused. This shifts the focus of attention and when it works takes them off the hot seat. It may even succeed in establishing an equivalency between different instances of deception.
The way this often goes is: Well, Bush lied too! It doesn’t matter whether he actually lied or that he may have done so years ago, the current canard suddenly becomes unimportant. Now the fight is over whose lies are worse.
But that was not the original issue. The question was about this present lie and its implications. If the “everyone does it” ploy succeeds, then everyone is equally guilty and there is no current mendacity that should disqualify what liberals are arguing.
This seems to me a remarkably cynical gambit. Committed liberals appear to have become so jaded by the habitual deceits of their heroes that they no longer consider a lie wrong. Their criterion is now: Does it work? And if it does, then it is political wizardry.
We saw this recently when Democrats were accused of voter fraud in the Wisconsin recall election. Fraud is a kind of lying that, in this case, is utilized to change election results. Yet Wisconsin Democrats went on television, not to deny the fraud, but to assert that it was no big deal. After all everyone engages in fraud and it does not really alter the course of events.
Then there is the Department of Justice refusing to allow states like South Carolina to use picture ID’s for voters. This is said to protect equality, but what about protecting against dishonest manipulations. Evidently the fact that votes by felons, though illegal, probably allowed Al Franken to become a Minnesota senator does not matter.
There is also the spectacle of the President telling the nation that he has spent less than his predecessors. Given the fact that Obama increased the national debt by nearly six trillion dollars, this would seem to be a joke. But no, it was said with a straight face.
Barack’s defenders quickly rushed forward with a bogus accounting to demonstrate that black was white and white was black; an exercise that would have been unnecessary had the president been honest. Even so, many of his partisans swallowed this invention as if it were true.
Yes, everyone lies, especially if they are liberals. They have to because what they stand for is so egregiously fraudulent. Moreover, they are forced to defend their lies with another cordon of lies. They know that to do less would place their credibility in jeopardy.
But I submit that the credibility of people who have grown so comfortable with lying should be in jeopardy. The deceits emanating from Washington, be they about national security leaks or attacks on political opponents, have come so fast and furious, that they ought to be alarming to people who value honesty.
I have my fingers crossed that most Americans fall into the latter category.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
By now I have heard this mantra thousands of times. Almost always it is issued for the mouths of liberal students trying to defend the latest deceit offered up by a liberal politician. Often nowadays, the person in question is the president of the United States—but his minions are also on the line.
The next thing I usually hear is that Bush lied too! Or that Republicans and/or conservatives are liars. If I suggest that not all politicians lie to the same degree, this may be acknowledged, but is treated as an incidental fact.
In contemplating how common this scenario is, several things strike me. The first is that these students, and the politicians whose example they are following, have become addicted to a strategy that most mothers warn against. They are essentially saying that: if everyone does it, it is okay.
Instead of defending a particular lie, they decide to accuse their opponents of the vice of which they stand accused. This shifts the focus of attention and when it works takes them off the hot seat. It may even succeed in establishing an equivalency between different instances of deception.
The way this often goes is: Well, Bush lied too! It doesn’t matter whether he actually lied or that he may have done so years ago, the current canard suddenly becomes unimportant. Now the fight is over whose lies are worse.
But that was not the original issue. The question was about this present lie and its implications. If the “everyone does it” ploy succeeds, then everyone is equally guilty and there is no current mendacity that should disqualify what liberals are arguing.
This seems to me a remarkably cynical gambit. Committed liberals appear to have become so jaded by the habitual deceits of their heroes that they no longer consider a lie wrong. Their criterion is now: Does it work? And if it does, then it is political wizardry.
We saw this recently when Democrats were accused of voter fraud in the Wisconsin recall election. Fraud is a kind of lying that, in this case, is utilized to change election results. Yet Wisconsin Democrats went on television, not to deny the fraud, but to assert that it was no big deal. After all everyone engages in fraud and it does not really alter the course of events.
Then there is the Department of Justice refusing to allow states like South Carolina to use picture ID’s for voters. This is said to protect equality, but what about protecting against dishonest manipulations. Evidently the fact that votes by felons, though illegal, probably allowed Al Franken to become a Minnesota senator does not matter.
There is also the spectacle of the President telling the nation that he has spent less than his predecessors. Given the fact that Obama increased the national debt by nearly six trillion dollars, this would seem to be a joke. But no, it was said with a straight face.
Barack’s defenders quickly rushed forward with a bogus accounting to demonstrate that black was white and white was black; an exercise that would have been unnecessary had the president been honest. Even so, many of his partisans swallowed this invention as if it were true.
Yes, everyone lies, especially if they are liberals. They have to because what they stand for is so egregiously fraudulent. Moreover, they are forced to defend their lies with another cordon of lies. They know that to do less would place their credibility in jeopardy.
But I submit that the credibility of people who have grown so comfortable with lying should be in jeopardy. The deceits emanating from Washington, be they about national security leaks or attacks on political opponents, have come so fast and furious, that they ought to be alarming to people who value honesty.
I have my fingers crossed that most Americans fall into the latter category.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Why Marriage II
Whenever I assert that the central purpose of marriage is to protect children, someone usually objects that not all marriages are blessed with children. How, they ask, can an institution be about something that is not always present?
This is a fair question, to which there is a good answer. Consider the rules of the road. American drivers know that when they get into their automobiles they are required to drive on the right side of the street. They also understand that without this rule, the gridlock would be so bad that no one could ever get anywhere.
Nonetheless, there are times we have the roads exclusively to ourselves. At four o’clock in the morning we might be the only vehicle for miles around. Even so, we are required to keep to the proper lane. And we do.
But why do we do? Why don’t we simply throw caution to the wind and aim our machines anywhere we desire? If it sounds silly that we do not, there is actually a very good reason that we don’t—and it does not involve the fear that we may get a ticket.
The reason is habit. The need to keep to the appropriate side of the road is so compelling that doing so must be reflexive. It needs to be something we do not think about, but take for granted. Only in this way can we ensure that people—and not just us—do what is necessary most of the time.
This same social strategy applies to marriage. Some social institutions are so deeply ingrained in our hearts and minds that they seem natural. They have to be because there are times when we might be tempted to violate them that are so egregious we must prevent this from occurring.
Mind you, social rules are broken with tedious regularity. Every society has an injunction against murder, nonetheless murders occur everywhere. Yet there would be far more murders if we did not take these proscriptions seriously. If we ignored them, then whenever we felt insulted there might be blood on the floor.
It is the same with marriage. Marriages are supposed to be lifelong commitments. When people agree to wed, they publically vow to remain together until death does them part. Not all do, but the fact that they take these promises seriously enhances the prospects that they will.
This is of particular importance to children because the benefit of having two parents is so great. A mother and father dedicated to remaining a couple are likely to be dedicated to protecting their offspring. There are exceptions, but emotional loyalties improve the odds.
These attitudes are embedded in people when they are very young. They derive in part from the importance that society attaches to marriage. The reason that nuptial ceremonies are public affairs is so that the community can add external pressures to personal desires.
If this is so, then tampering with time-honored marital traditions may be more dangerous than many people suppose. If traditional marriages strengthen the bonds between individuals, then scoffing at this custom may loosen attachments upon which we all rely—especially children.
Which brings me to the subject of gay marriage. Gay marriages may be a good idea—but then again they may not. If in imposing this recent innovation people become convinced that marriage is arbitrary, the sense of sanctity with which it has been surrounded may be reduced.
Then where will we be? Will we feel free to drive on whichever side of the road we please? Will we decide that multiple spouses are okay? Or that cohabitation is just as good as the old-fashioned kind of marriage?
But if we do: what about the children? Will we also decide that a commitment to them is also arbitrary? I hope not, because if this transpires the amount of personal unhappiness will be staggering.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
This is a fair question, to which there is a good answer. Consider the rules of the road. American drivers know that when they get into their automobiles they are required to drive on the right side of the street. They also understand that without this rule, the gridlock would be so bad that no one could ever get anywhere.
Nonetheless, there are times we have the roads exclusively to ourselves. At four o’clock in the morning we might be the only vehicle for miles around. Even so, we are required to keep to the proper lane. And we do.
But why do we do? Why don’t we simply throw caution to the wind and aim our machines anywhere we desire? If it sounds silly that we do not, there is actually a very good reason that we don’t—and it does not involve the fear that we may get a ticket.
The reason is habit. The need to keep to the appropriate side of the road is so compelling that doing so must be reflexive. It needs to be something we do not think about, but take for granted. Only in this way can we ensure that people—and not just us—do what is necessary most of the time.
This same social strategy applies to marriage. Some social institutions are so deeply ingrained in our hearts and minds that they seem natural. They have to be because there are times when we might be tempted to violate them that are so egregious we must prevent this from occurring.
Mind you, social rules are broken with tedious regularity. Every society has an injunction against murder, nonetheless murders occur everywhere. Yet there would be far more murders if we did not take these proscriptions seriously. If we ignored them, then whenever we felt insulted there might be blood on the floor.
It is the same with marriage. Marriages are supposed to be lifelong commitments. When people agree to wed, they publically vow to remain together until death does them part. Not all do, but the fact that they take these promises seriously enhances the prospects that they will.
This is of particular importance to children because the benefit of having two parents is so great. A mother and father dedicated to remaining a couple are likely to be dedicated to protecting their offspring. There are exceptions, but emotional loyalties improve the odds.
These attitudes are embedded in people when they are very young. They derive in part from the importance that society attaches to marriage. The reason that nuptial ceremonies are public affairs is so that the community can add external pressures to personal desires.
If this is so, then tampering with time-honored marital traditions may be more dangerous than many people suppose. If traditional marriages strengthen the bonds between individuals, then scoffing at this custom may loosen attachments upon which we all rely—especially children.
Which brings me to the subject of gay marriage. Gay marriages may be a good idea—but then again they may not. If in imposing this recent innovation people become convinced that marriage is arbitrary, the sense of sanctity with which it has been surrounded may be reduced.
Then where will we be? Will we feel free to drive on whichever side of the road we please? Will we decide that multiple spouses are okay? Or that cohabitation is just as good as the old-fashioned kind of marriage?
But if we do: what about the children? Will we also decide that a commitment to them is also arbitrary? I hope not, because if this transpires the amount of personal unhappiness will be staggering.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Human Hierarchies
I am a sociologist. I love being a sociologist. It gives me the opportunity to study how people live and why they do the things they do. Furthermore, because I regard myself as a social scientist, my goal has been to utilize the tools of science to expand our knowledge of the social world.
In this quest, I have had many allies. Talented sociologists, past and present, have contributed to building a wealth of unexpected insights. Nevertheless, a large proportion of contemporary sociologists function more as moralists than social scientists.
These latter folks are more concerned with promoting pre-established moral agendas than unearthing new facts. An example of this tendency has been provided by a shift in how they conceive of their subject matter. Thus, where once they talked about social stratification (i.e., social class differences), today they study inequalities.
“Inequality” is, of course, a loaded term. It is tendentious, that is, it incorporates an unstated moral judgment. We in the United States, given our Jeffersonian heritage, cannot but assume that inequality is bad. Having been told, from our tenderest years, that equality is an unalienable right, we believe it is.
Now whether it is, or isn’t, is not my current concern. The issue I wish to address is whether pursuing an unexpressed moral agenda is inimical to good science. When one’s moral goals take precedence over the search for truth, is it possible to discover the truth?
One of my professional idols, Max Weber, insisted that sociology should be value-neutral. He contended that whatever our personal commitments, we must leave them at the door when we put on our scientific hats. Yes, we can have moral convictions, but these should not blind us to unwelcome realities.
For me, this is the bedrock of genuine science; hence I try to utilize it as a beacon while navigating the shoals of unexplored knowledge. As a result, instead of studying “inequalities,” I have investigated the ins and outs of human hierarchies.
In particular, I have studied how social hierarchies are created and maintained. Rather than assume that equality is the normal human condition—as many sociologists do—I have explored what people do when they engage in ranking themselves relative to others.
As a consequence, I have come to the conclusion that we are hierarchical animals. All of us, the elites and the underclasses, seek to improve our status in comparison with others. We want to be winners and not losers. Indeed, so important do we find this, that we sometimes put our lives on the line in its pursuit.
My conclusions have recently been published in a book entitled Human Hierarchies: A General Theory (Transaction Publishing). Much to my amazement, this title seems not to have previously been utilized. Apparently the idea that we are an inherently hierarchical species has had limited appeal.
Yet, if I am correct, it is impossible to understand why we behave the ways we do without placing our conduct in a hierarchical perspective. Thus, we today find ourselves in the midst of class warfare. This could not happen if we did not divide ourselves according to differences in social power.
Are the wealthy bad people? Are the poor sainted victims? Why do some people come to these conclusions? And are the lessons they draw valid? Without disinterestedly examining what is taking place, it is doubtful that the truth can be reached.
For my own part, I have concluded that ranking systems are inevitable and that everyone, from the top to the bottom, participates in perpetuating them. What is open to change is how they are constructed—not whether they will exist.
This is not to say that hierarchy is always fair. Clearly, it frequently is not. But neither is it to suggest that we can totally eliminate unfairness. We cannot. Moral improvements can be effectively pursued, but only if we recognize the limits of what is possible.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
In this quest, I have had many allies. Talented sociologists, past and present, have contributed to building a wealth of unexpected insights. Nevertheless, a large proportion of contemporary sociologists function more as moralists than social scientists.
These latter folks are more concerned with promoting pre-established moral agendas than unearthing new facts. An example of this tendency has been provided by a shift in how they conceive of their subject matter. Thus, where once they talked about social stratification (i.e., social class differences), today they study inequalities.
“Inequality” is, of course, a loaded term. It is tendentious, that is, it incorporates an unstated moral judgment. We in the United States, given our Jeffersonian heritage, cannot but assume that inequality is bad. Having been told, from our tenderest years, that equality is an unalienable right, we believe it is.
Now whether it is, or isn’t, is not my current concern. The issue I wish to address is whether pursuing an unexpressed moral agenda is inimical to good science. When one’s moral goals take precedence over the search for truth, is it possible to discover the truth?
One of my professional idols, Max Weber, insisted that sociology should be value-neutral. He contended that whatever our personal commitments, we must leave them at the door when we put on our scientific hats. Yes, we can have moral convictions, but these should not blind us to unwelcome realities.
For me, this is the bedrock of genuine science; hence I try to utilize it as a beacon while navigating the shoals of unexplored knowledge. As a result, instead of studying “inequalities,” I have investigated the ins and outs of human hierarchies.
In particular, I have studied how social hierarchies are created and maintained. Rather than assume that equality is the normal human condition—as many sociologists do—I have explored what people do when they engage in ranking themselves relative to others.
As a consequence, I have come to the conclusion that we are hierarchical animals. All of us, the elites and the underclasses, seek to improve our status in comparison with others. We want to be winners and not losers. Indeed, so important do we find this, that we sometimes put our lives on the line in its pursuit.
My conclusions have recently been published in a book entitled Human Hierarchies: A General Theory (Transaction Publishing). Much to my amazement, this title seems not to have previously been utilized. Apparently the idea that we are an inherently hierarchical species has had limited appeal.
Yet, if I am correct, it is impossible to understand why we behave the ways we do without placing our conduct in a hierarchical perspective. Thus, we today find ourselves in the midst of class warfare. This could not happen if we did not divide ourselves according to differences in social power.
Are the wealthy bad people? Are the poor sainted victims? Why do some people come to these conclusions? And are the lessons they draw valid? Without disinterestedly examining what is taking place, it is doubtful that the truth can be reached.
For my own part, I have concluded that ranking systems are inevitable and that everyone, from the top to the bottom, participates in perpetuating them. What is open to change is how they are constructed—not whether they will exist.
This is not to say that hierarchy is always fair. Clearly, it frequently is not. But neither is it to suggest that we can totally eliminate unfairness. We cannot. Moral improvements can be effectively pursued, but only if we recognize the limits of what is possible.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Why Marriage?
What is the purpose of marriage? Why do we have the institution? Now that the pressure to legalize gay marriages has reached the boiling point, what is so important about allowing homosexuals to partake in the same tradition as straights?
The sociologist Andrew Cherlin has argued that contemporary marriages are individualistic. People embark upon them because they want to be happy. Couples assume, correctly so in the case of good marriages, that tying the knot will lead to greater personal fulfillment.
From this perspective, if making a matrimonial commitment does not enhance one’s personal well being, a divorce is in order. More than this, if a person is uncomfortable with promising to be faithful forever, then engaging in cohabitation is a viable alternative.
Given this background, why are gays so insistent on participating in what many people have described as a dying convention?
I submit that it is because homosexuals also want to be happy. As human beings, they too seek love that they can depend upon. Since they too assume that marriage is a bond they can trust, they crave access to its benefits.
But is this what marriage is about? Why, since at least hunter-gatherer times, have all societies established some form of permanent heterosexual union? Why have they all insisted that couples pledge to remain together—no matter what?
The evidence is compelling. It is because marriage is not about personal happiness, but about providing security for the children a man and woman may produce. Were it just about obtaining a compliant sexual partner, shacking up would serve quite as well.
Way back when our ancestors roamed the countryside pursing game and picking berries, it was impossible for a mother to raise her offspring without assistance. She could scarcely have tracked prey animals with toddlers trailing close behind. No, she needed a husband to do the hunting and to bring home the fruits of his labors.
Times have obviously changed. For most people, meat is no longer obtained by stalking buffalo, but comes pre-packaged in the supermarket. There is no reason for a woman, or her children, to be protein deficient, that is, as long as she has money in her purse.
Moreover, now that most women are out in the marketplace earning their own dollars, they do not need a man to do this for them. Even if they are unemployed, they can rely on the government to provide a welfare check and food stamps.
So why the need for marriage? As it happens, the research shows that children do much better when raised by two parents. Unwed parents sometimes succeed, but the results are far from uniformly positive.
Alright then, so why not sponsor gay marriages on the grounds that they too are superior compared with single parenthood? The answer here is not clear. First of all, far fewer gay alliances produce children than do heterosexual ones. This is especially true with respect to gay men whose unions are notoriously insecure.
As to lesbian couples, these are rearing fewer offspring than media accounts might leave one to surmise. Nonetheless, if they do as good a job of parenting as do a traditional husband and wife, does this matter?
According to the studies that have been produced, being raised by a gay couple is no worse than being raised by a straight one. The trouble is that this research is largely anecdotal and, because it is recent, is not long-term.
The bottom line is that we do not know if homosexual marriages are as good at raising children as the conventional sort. They may be. But then again, perhaps they are not.
With all of the contemporary agitation in favor of gay marriage, we probably need more time to figure out what works before committing to an entirely new form of interpersonal commitment. While gays deserve as much happiness as straights, the real concern here is what happens to their children.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
The sociologist Andrew Cherlin has argued that contemporary marriages are individualistic. People embark upon them because they want to be happy. Couples assume, correctly so in the case of good marriages, that tying the knot will lead to greater personal fulfillment.
From this perspective, if making a matrimonial commitment does not enhance one’s personal well being, a divorce is in order. More than this, if a person is uncomfortable with promising to be faithful forever, then engaging in cohabitation is a viable alternative.
Given this background, why are gays so insistent on participating in what many people have described as a dying convention?
I submit that it is because homosexuals also want to be happy. As human beings, they too seek love that they can depend upon. Since they too assume that marriage is a bond they can trust, they crave access to its benefits.
But is this what marriage is about? Why, since at least hunter-gatherer times, have all societies established some form of permanent heterosexual union? Why have they all insisted that couples pledge to remain together—no matter what?
The evidence is compelling. It is because marriage is not about personal happiness, but about providing security for the children a man and woman may produce. Were it just about obtaining a compliant sexual partner, shacking up would serve quite as well.
Way back when our ancestors roamed the countryside pursing game and picking berries, it was impossible for a mother to raise her offspring without assistance. She could scarcely have tracked prey animals with toddlers trailing close behind. No, she needed a husband to do the hunting and to bring home the fruits of his labors.
Times have obviously changed. For most people, meat is no longer obtained by stalking buffalo, but comes pre-packaged in the supermarket. There is no reason for a woman, or her children, to be protein deficient, that is, as long as she has money in her purse.
Moreover, now that most women are out in the marketplace earning their own dollars, they do not need a man to do this for them. Even if they are unemployed, they can rely on the government to provide a welfare check and food stamps.
So why the need for marriage? As it happens, the research shows that children do much better when raised by two parents. Unwed parents sometimes succeed, but the results are far from uniformly positive.
Alright then, so why not sponsor gay marriages on the grounds that they too are superior compared with single parenthood? The answer here is not clear. First of all, far fewer gay alliances produce children than do heterosexual ones. This is especially true with respect to gay men whose unions are notoriously insecure.
As to lesbian couples, these are rearing fewer offspring than media accounts might leave one to surmise. Nonetheless, if they do as good a job of parenting as do a traditional husband and wife, does this matter?
According to the studies that have been produced, being raised by a gay couple is no worse than being raised by a straight one. The trouble is that this research is largely anecdotal and, because it is recent, is not long-term.
The bottom line is that we do not know if homosexual marriages are as good at raising children as the conventional sort. They may be. But then again, perhaps they are not.
With all of the contemporary agitation in favor of gay marriage, we probably need more time to figure out what works before committing to an entirely new form of interpersonal commitment. While gays deserve as much happiness as straights, the real concern here is what happens to their children.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
