This demonstrates Why Republicans are Misguided Homophobes. Same Sex Couples do not have 1,342 legal rights and benefits afforded by civil marriage contracts.
On May 3, 4:22 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > Heteros and gays have at this time the very same legal options. No > matter how you look at it "marriage" is now a legality. > > Please name ONE, just ONE, legal option that I have that gays don't. > > Do NOT list emotions. I said LEGAL OPTIONS. > > On May 3, 12:32 pm, Tommy News <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Why Republicans Believe Anti-Gay Pseudoscience > > BY CHRIS MOONEY > > > On May 8, North Carolinians will vote on a constitutional amendment > > that defines a marriage between a man and a woman as the “only > > domestic legal union” the state will recognize -- thereby barring LGBT > > marriage equality. The amendment would also ban civil unions, and end > > domestic partner benefits, like prescription drug and health care > > coverage, for the partners and children of public employees. At its > > deepest level, this issue is about fairness for everyone under the > > law. But less mentioned is that it is also about science, and what’s > > factually true. > > > Many voters who go to the polls to support Amendment One will do so > > believing outright falsehoods about same-sex marriages and civil > > unions. In particular, they hold the belief that such partnerships are > > damaging to the health and well-being of the children raised in them. > > That is, after all, one of the chief justifications for the amendment. > > > According to the pro-Amendment One Vote for Marriage NC, for instance, > > “the overwhelming body of social science evidence establishes that > > children do best when raised by their married mother and father.” If > > marriage is defined as anything other than the union between > > > man and woman, the group adds, we will see “a higher incidence of all > > the documented social ills associated with children being raised in a > > home without their married biological parents.” > > > “Overwhelming body of social science evidence”? “Documented social > > ills”? Is this really true? Are same sex marriages and civil unions > > bad for kids? > > > Well, no. Indeed, as I report in my new book The Republican Brain: The > > Science of Why They Deny Science and Reality, the claim that the kids > > won’t be all right in same sex marriages or partnerships now rates up > > there with a number of other hoary old falsehoods about homosexuality: > > the assertion that people can “choose” whether to be gay; the notion > > that homosexuality is a type of disorder; and the wrong idea that it > > can be cured through “reparative” therapy. All of these claims are > > explicitly disavowed by the American Psychological Association (APA). > > > In a moment, I want to explore the underlying psychology behind how > > conservatives, especially religious ones, can believe such falsehoods. > > But first, let’s dismantle, on a substantive level, the idea that > > research shows that kids fare worse when raised by two parents who are > > of the same gender. > > > According to the APA, the relevant science shows nothing of the kind. > > “Beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents…have no > > empirical foundation,” concludes a recent publication from the > > organization. To the contrary, the association states, the > > “development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and > > gay parents do not differ markedly > > > from that of children with heterosexual parents.” > > > So how can Christian conservatives possibly claim otherwise? > > > CONTINUED, AFTER THE JUMP... > > > Well, one favored approach is literally citing the wrong studies. > > There is, after all, a vast amount of research on kids in heterosexual > > two parent families, and mostly these kids do quite well—certainly > > better than kids in single-parent families (for obvious reasons). > > Christian conservatives then cite these studies to argue that > > heterosexual families are best for kids, but there’s just one glaring > > problem. In the studies of heterosexual two-parent families where > > children fare well, the comparison group is families with one mother > > or one father—not two mothers or two fathers. So to leap from these > > studies to conclusions about same sex parenting, explains University > > of Virginia social scientist Charlotte Patterson, is “what we call in > > the trade bad sampling techniques.” > > > But wait: Don’t Christian conservatives want to be factually right, > > and to believe what’s true about the world? And shouldn’t a proper > > reading of this research actually come as a relief to them, and help > > to assuage their concerns about dangerous social consequences of > > same-sex marriage or civil unions? If only it were that simple. We all > > want to be right, and to believe that our views are based on the best > > available information. But in this case, Christian conservatives > > utterly fail to get past their emotions, which powerfully bias their > > reasoning. Indeed, science doesn’t just demonstrate that the kids are > > all right in same-sex unions. It also shows how and why some people > > reason poorly in highly politicized cases like this one -- and, in the > > case of the anti-gay views of Christian conservatives, rely on their > > gut emotions to come up with wrong beliefs. Here’s how it works. > > There are a small number of Christian right researchers and > > intellectuals who have tried to make a scientific case against > > same-sex marriages and unions, by citing alleged harms to children. > > This stuff isn’t mainstream or scientifically accepted -- witness the > > APA’s statements on the matter. But from the perspective of the > > Christian right, that doesn’t really matter. When people are looking > > for evidence to support their deeply held views, the science suggests > > that people engage in “motivated reasoning.” Their deep emotional > > convictions guide the retrieval of self-supporting information that > > they then use to argue with, to prop themselves up. It isn’t about > > truth, it’s about feeling that you’re right -- righteous, even. > > > And where, in turn, do these emotions come from? Well, there’s the > > crux. A growing body of research shows that liberals and > > conservatives, on average, have different moral intuitions, impulses > > that bias us in different directions before we’re even consciously > > thinking about situations or issues. Indeed, this research suggests > > that liberals and conservatives even have different bodily responses > > to stimuli, of a sort that they cannot control. And one of the > > strongest areas of difference involves one’s sensitivity to the > > feeling of disgust. > > > A recent study, for instance, found that “individuals with marked > > involuntary physiological responses to disgusting images, such as of a > > man eating a large mouthful of writhing worms, are more likely to > > self-identify as conservative and, especially, to oppose gay marriage > > than are individuals with more muted physiological responses to the > > same images.” In other words, there’s now data to back up what we’ve > > always kind of known: The average conservative, much more than the > > average liberal, is having visceral feelings of disgust towards > > same-sex marriage. And then, when these conservatives try to > > consciously reason about the matter, they seize on any information to > > support or justify their deep-seated and uncontrolled response -- > > which pushes them in the direction of believing and embracing > > > information that appears to justify and ratify the emotional impulse. > > > And voila. Suddenly same-sex marriages and civil unions are bad for > > kids. How’s that for the power of human reason? > > > All people engage in emotion-guided or motivated reasoning, to be > > sure. But mounting evidence suggests that left and right may do so > > differently. And they definitely do so for different reasons -- as the > > present case so strongly demonstrates. > > > Does this mean we should be more tolerant of the intolerant, or less > > disgusted by those who may consider us disgusting? Maybe. After all, > > people may not have much control over these impulses. They may not > > even be aware of them. At the very least, such knowledge should > > increase our level of understanding of those who disagree with us. > > > In the end, however, facts are facts -- and emotions and gut instincts > > are an utterly unreliable way of identifying them. We can try to be > > understanding of people different from us -- even when they’re > > manifestly failing at the same task. But the latest research makes it > > more untenable than ever to base public policy on gut-driven > > misinformation. > > > Read more:http://www.towleroad.com/2012/05/mooney.html#ixzz1tpwR6mqC > > > -- > > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time. > > Have a great day, > > Tommy > > > -- > > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time. > > Have a great day, > > Tommy- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
