dk

I'll take that as a doctrinal statement.

keyser_soze

The fundies of course. They lately just seem to have something about them, the need to equate sin to so many things.... I don't know, I just had a flash of inspiration that somehow the conservative jesus freaks were getting a little too powerful in this world, that they were using tactics like propaganda and insinuations, accusations of immoral behaviour to peg atheists as something other than what we are. They want us to be held up as immoral because we refuse to toe the line in their little program. Perhaps I'm just seeing a conspiracy, but it seems that the religious right has taken on the characteristics of a propaganda spewing war machine a little too effectively of late. But I could, again, just be a little maudlin, and a lot drunk at this hour.

Kimpatsu

Then you'd be wrong. (Not for the first time...)

Kimpatsu

Don't take me too seriously, I was just having a little fun with your admission to have been drinking. I'm gonna get hammered myself tonight, I suspect.
BTW, cool user name. "The Usual Suspects" has got to be a classic movie. I was fooled completely, until right at the end when Kevin Spacey stopped limping on his way out of the police station. I was sure Chaz Palminteri was the real Soze...

dk

dk: We are a nations of laws, not n-families and x-families. Everybody gets treated the same. SSM affects everyone because the Law treats everyone the same. If SSM is legalized then all families will be treated as x-families. Today the nuclear family has standing before the court, and single parents are treated like n-families.

(snip)

FOIL: You said that the hypothetical you set out would have implications for "traditional" family permutations, but I really don't see the applicability. Perhaps if you used a hypothetical with a "nuclear family" as the basis that would make it clearer.
dk: Ok, the mother in a nuclear family divorces her husband to shack up with another women. Mom perjures herself in family court to take the kids from dad, then accuses dad of molesting the kids. SSM becomes legal, and mom marries her co-mom who then adopts the kids cutting the father completely out of the child’s life. The biological father has no standing before the court.

FOIL: Okay, I think that this helps a bit. Just to make sure I understand, though, you're saying that non-biologically related "families" cannot be "nuclear families", correct? So adoptive families would necessarily be "x-families", right?
dk: SSM families can’t procreate so depend on the courts to acquire children, and represent a new class of interested Third Parties. Adoptive families conform to whatever the courts order. SSM affects what the court orders.
dk: Exactly, and several state appellate courts have already began to cut the parent-child bond in favor of the x-family. But these are narrow interpretation, whereas with SSM the x-family would make the interpretation broad. Frozen sperm, embryos and blastulas also impact n-families. Here’s a few state cases on Lesbians already in the system Bottoms v. Bottoms, Va App 1997), In Re Jacob, 86 NY2d 651, 22 FLR 1003, or the case at 22 FLR 1488
dk: Sure…dk: A wife can’t sue her husband for damages in civil court. Dependent children can’t sue their siblings for damages in civil court because they have no standing. One family can sue another family in civil court. Child Rights are a big deal for this reason.
dk: First the nuclear family has standing before the court today, and the proposition of legalized SSM marriage impugns that status of n-parents by introducing Third Parties e.g. a mom&|co-mom or dad|&co-father have broad legal implications to family law. This is clear and not ambiguous. Second: I’m not implying anything, the legalization of SSM will have broad and far reaching affects upon Family Law that reach far beyond gay an lesbian families. Third: please try to ask one question per paragraph. Fourth, family courts issue orders based upon a finding of law and evidence.

FOIL: And you really didn't answer the question I posed. I'm trying to understand the principles you use in making your argument, so if you could clarify, it would be helpful. Are adoptive families "x-families" or not?
dk: I’ve defined an x-family and n-family. The CDC and the Moynihan labels the children of x-families as “AT RISK” children. Some adoptive families are n-families and others x-families. SSM families don’t exist, but they take the form of an x-family. I don’t see any ambiguity here, so I don’t understand your confusion and can’t answer your question. Perhaps you can point out what’s ambiguous to you, so I can address it?.

dk: I can’t help you here, SSM is a hypothetical so any legal definition I might offer would also be hypothetical.

FOIL: So, in terms of law, it is the legal definition of marriage that provides the basis upon which the rights of married couples (WRT taxes, parental rights, etc) stand. As it is specifically this legal definition with which SSM advocates are concerned, how is the situation any different?
dk: However one defines SSM legally, it necessarily introduces a THIRD PARTY with standing before the court into family law i.e. a co-mother or a co-father. The Third Party has broad and far reaching implications in Law far beyond SSM. For example, say my dad has $400,000 estate. Suppose my sister with two kids takes in her friend June that has fallen upon hard times, then my sister gets killed in car accident. June claims common law marriage for the insurance money. With legal SSM June has Third Party standing before the court with co-habitation rights. She gets my sisters insurance benefit, her cut of my dad’s estate when he dies and my sisters kids, cutting out the grandparents and the grandparents children.

FOIL: Are you suggesting here that paternal and maternal bonds necessarily take precedence over whatever might be considered to be "children's rights?"
dk: I’m saying SSM has legal ramifications far beyond the actual marriage contract.

FOIL: In other words, would it be preferable on your view to place a child with its abusive natural parents or loving adoptive ones?
dk: Custody battles favor the party with the best lawyer and worst ethics. The sitting judge determines who’s abusive when all the parties have equal standing before the court. SSM puts all parties before the court on equal standing, and introduces a third party.

FOIL: Just to concede my own bias, I believe that the best interests of a child lie within a healthy, loving, supportive, and nurturing family. The "n-family" certainly can (and often does) fit that description, but there's no guarantee that it will. One of the things I'm trying to ascertain is the extent to which the domains of our two positions overlap.
dk: Ok, in my opinion the courts are in a poor position to determination what’s in the best interest of a child in the best circumstances, but in politically charged circumstances like SSM the adversarial nature of our court system reduces children into political pawns. .

FOIL: So, a clarification would be beneficial to me in understanding the principle you're using. You seem to be saying that biological standing trumps any other considerations, but I'm not sure. Is that in fact what you're arguing?
dk: I tend to view understanding in terms of the ambiguity presented by perspective. When we presume the n-family is abusive, or an x-family is loving, we beg the question increasing the ambiguity. From an objective perspective evidence needs to be weighted to determine a prudent course.

dk: Actually 3 or the 5 risk factors sighted relate directly to family structure. The risk presented by poverty infers (correlates) with single moms w/ her children that are disproportionately poor at 35%. Any one factor puts a kid at risk, and the more factors that apply to a child the greater the risk. Nuclear families do better economically, and therefore represent the best interests of children, at least in form.

FOIL: What really isn't clear is how that data supports a conclusion that the presence of the male biological parent is essential to child-rearing
dk: Please explain. I must point out that pedophiles and rapists are rarely women, so a Male-Male couple present greater risks than a M-F or a F-F couple w/ children. Earlier in the threat I spent considerable effort establishing this fact. What we have here is a dilemma. Men are more dangerous than women, and boys without a healthy male role model are statistically the most dangerous of all. For example in black inner city neighborhoods where x-families (single moms) are predominant, over 50% of young men go to prison when they turn 18, not college. .
dk: That’s not what the Census Bureau and DHHS -Institute for Women’s Policy Research says …in fact the numbers and prognosis is quit depressing…FOIL: Is there any evidence that equates AT RISK with MISSING A FATHER (this might need to say "biological", but that would depend
upon whatever further clarification you provide) and to no other socio-economic factors?
dk: There’s a ton of evidence, and how well nuclear families do and how poorly single mothers w/ children do gets very little attention, in my opinion.

keyser_soze

I never take anyone too seriously, unless I think they are the type to harm people.

It was an excellent movie, and the underlying theme was just so catchy, I thought it would make a nice pseudo for me. Not that I mind using my real name, I do often, and on many boards...as well as my different facets of personality. One would hardly think that I am incapable of objectivism towards religion, but they would be wrong. The historical side of it, I take very seriously...and enjoy to a large extent. I just have problems with people's taking a bunch of goat herders random thoughts on the supernatural and making it into a way to live and govern. Scary people, middle eastern goatherders. Remind me of kentuckian retreatists, no moral compunction, and the willingness to kill you at the drop of a hat.

FOIL

That's a terrible situation, but how is it materially different from this one:

The mother in a n-family divorces her husband to shack up with another man. Mom perjures herself in family court (regarding her adultery) to take the kids from dad, then accuses dad of molesting the kids. OSM is already legal, and mom marries stepdad who then adopts the kids cutting the father completely out of the child's life. The biological father has no standing before the court.



Just so it's understood, I'm going to include my original question with your responses whenever I think it could be helpful to clarify the issue.

I don't understand your response. Adoptive parents may already be unable to procreate and therefore represent an already existing class of interested Third Parties. If the court must already consider this (and it obviously does), why does SSM necessarily "affect what the court orders?" What I don't seem to get yet is why the situation is any different from current rules on adoption. The Missouri state rules you list don't provide any guidance here, as I can't see where there would be any new rules required for SSM; they seem to already be broad enough to cover the new family definition.

I'm afraid I don't understand what it means to "cut the parent-child bond in favor of the x-family". Do you perhaps mean a situation analogous to the hypothetical you posed, above (with the lesbian mom)? If so, I have to ask how that is any different from the hypothetical I posed other than one is a SSM and one an OSM? In other words, the application of law seems to me identical in both, but your claim is that it would be different for both is SSM were a reality. I must admit I just don't see it yet.

But the info you provided doesn't address the issue you raised. You said originally that responsibility for a child's actions could be assigned to a non-custodial third party. The information you posted refers only to the custody of those children. Perhaps I didn't make my request clear, but I was really looking for the source of your original statement: that responsibility for the actions of a minor child have been assigned to non-custodial third-parties.

Oh, I'm glad you clarified. This wasn't how I read your original post; you're talking about dependent children, so I can sue my brother.

And, of course, such an approach makes perfect sense. Why should married persons or dependent children sue each other for damages? Who would pay?

I'm afraid, from my standpoint anyway, that it's not at all clear and it is quite ambigous. Third parties in the form of co-mom and co-dad already exist as step-parents. Your claim would appear to be that the sex of the co-mom/co-dad as related to the sex of the biological parent creates some sort of a difference in law or the application of law that does not exist today, but it's not at all clear to me why you say this.

You've said this many times, but as I indicated above, I don't see it. The issues of adoption and custodial rights already exist, how does SSM change them except WRT the sex of the co-parent?

My apologies. Some of my questions are more or less rhetorically related to each other, but I'll try to be more concise.

Good thing, too. So we're agreed that the issue of lesbians lying in court or moms and dads accusing each other of child molestation without cause is really moot WRT this issue, right?

Thanks for the partial clarification on adoptive families. I think what would really help me on this issue is if you could now clarify the factors that distinguish an "n-family" adoptive family from an "x-family" adoptive family.

Let's take another hypothetical, one that could exist today:

Say my dad has a $400,000 estate. Suppose my brother with two kids takes in his friend June who has fallen upon hard times, then my brother gets killed in car accident. June claims common law marriage for the insurance money. With legal OSM June has Third Party standing before the court with co-habitation rights. She gets my brothers insurance benefits, her cut of my dad’s estate when he dies and my brother's kids, cutting out the grandparents and the grandparents children.

Of course you realize that "common law" marriage does not exist in every state, but that aside, how is your hypothetical materially different from mine?

That much I understand. What I still don't have is the answer to the question I asked: do you believe that paternal and maternal bonds necessarily take precedence over whatever might be considered to be "children's rights"?

A) Who would be in the "best position" to determine what's in the best interests of a child when whether or not the biological family provides an environment in keeping with those best interests is the matter in question? It certainly can't be the biological family and it's beyond dispute that this issue is a real one that occurs in the real world.

B) Why, in your opinion, is SSM necessarily any more or less "politically charged" than such issues like "grandparent's rights", or "father's rights", or any issues that surround non-custodial biological parents?

I'm afraid your response really doesn't help me to understand your position. I'm not sure what's causing the ambiguity. Perhaps if I explain my motivation and rephrase the question:

I'm trying to determine what the "guiding principles" behind your line of argument are. You've said several things that would seem to lead me to believe that you give biological relationships priority over any other considerations. I'm merely trying to determine if that is the case.

Okay, now to rephrase my question: In an objective setting, with conclusive evidence presented and considered, both of the parents in an n-family are determined to be abusive. By any objective consideration, the children could be at risk to their safety and a determination of best interests must be made. Which of the following options would you favor:

A) remove the children from the abusive home and place them with foster parents who were determined by the same objective methods to be caring, non-abusive custodians.

B) leave the children in their current home because the benefits from the biological relationships outweigh any possible benefits from placing them in a non-biologically related household.

I should also make clear that although I'm posing a hypothetical situation, such situations actually do occur.

I should also make clear that I don't consider this a "loaded" question. I'm not trying to "trap you" into saying anything you don't want to say. You can elaborate or clarify the question or answer in any way you like. I'm merely trying to determine what limits you would place on the preference of biological relationships.

They do indeed correlate. In fact, all these variables are actually auto-correlated. In statistical terms, that means there are no independent variables. There are multiple dependencies at work here, each variable driving another which in turns drives another, sometimes driving the driver of the variable before! The relationships are exceedingly complex. Therefore, to attempt to single out one variable and identify it as the causal factor or even the most important one is not supported by the data.

This is an excellent illustration of why I'm asking some of these questions. The point you're making here, that "boys without a healthy male role model..." does not appear to be supported by the data you invoke.

The socio-economic factors, including the lack of male role models, in those "black inner city neighborhoods" exist in a complex inter-relationship. What the Moynihan report demonstrated, for example, was that the lack of "healthy male role models" in the population as studied correlated with negative outcomes, not that the "lack of healthy male role models" regardless of any other factors correlated with negative outcomes.

The Moynihan report even implicitly recognizes this point on more than one occasion. It begins with a recitation of the history of oppression of blacks in American society, the emotional and psychological effects of which certainly cannot be discounted. Another instance you've even noted yourself:

It's explicitly noted here that there is at least one socio-economic factor, irrespective of a "missing father" that is materially implicated in reducing negative outcomes. Therefore, it simply cannot be the case that negative outcomes are due solely to the missing parent.

And that's really all that Moynihan was saying. That black children without fathers in the existing environment are more likely to fail than those with fathers. The report does not conclude that it is only the missing father that is to blame, nor can its conclusions be extended to indicate that missing fathers will cause similar negative outcomes regardless of environment.

So, long story even longer, what I was asking was whether you did indeed have any information that supports the conclusion "missing biological fathers" are the sole or primary cause of negative outcomes.

It certainly is depressing, but where's the necessary relevance? I certainly don't deny that single-parent families are at risk, but the question is "why?" Are they at risk solely because they are single-parent families, or there other factors at work as well?

Well, that's really all I'm asking to see. Perhaps you could provide some additional references that address this issue. What are really needed are some factor-analytic studies that demonstrate the causal relationship between "MISSING MALE BIOLOGICAL PARENT" and "AT RISK". The data I've seen goes no further than addressing the inherent risks WRT the environment.

For example, is there any data that shows that children in single-female-parent households have the same relative risk outcome regardless of socio-economic status? IOW, do the children of rich, white single-female-parent families have the same probability of at-risk status as the children of poor, black single-white-female-parent families?

(That's the same question phrased two different ways, so no cracks about two questions in a single paragraph! )

FOIL

dk

Hey Foil,
A couple of issues have jumped out at me from your dogged questions. First I'd like to examine the magnitude -or- hyperbole of the CDC’s declaration that 50% of US kids are “at risk”. The ratio could mean anything from fuzzy math to a crisis of stupendous proportions. To me “at risk” means a good chance at a poor outcome i.e. better than 1 in 3 chances of a poor outcome. I assume a poor outcome in the eyes of the CDC means a kid grows up to become a professional criminal, drug addict, unemployable or mentally ill. On the other hand the 50% at risk ratio could mean fuzzy math i.e. a contrivance statisticians use to obscure something meaningful -or- emphasize something meaningless. Given the record prison population, unacceptable violent crime rate and crisis in education I tend towards a crisis of stupendous proportions. But lets be honest, the deviant behavior indicators all show society has reached a plateau that might be the eye of the storm -or- a new equilibrium point that forecasts a stabile future after turbulent times.

What got me reflecting upon the matter was that my current train of thought led me down a dead end path. For example our nation today fits single moms into a one size fits all n-family straight jacket. These single_mom-families (s-families) in most instances have become dependent upon an elaborate safety net that slows an s-families fall into dysfunction with cushion of hopelessness. Most single moms lack the power to project (beam) themselves to multiple locations to meet the demands of motherhood and full time employment. When a kids gets sick single moms must abandon job or child. This has nothing to do with SSM or the n-family but with society putting unrealistic pressures on s-families. To evaluate the level of the dysfunctional the s-family brings to the debate we must look back to the sexual revolution, no-fault divorce and unreliable preventative birth control. It’s the singular perspective of the Rule of Law that makes this topic so unsavory from so many perspectives. But that would be natural because the Rule of Law evolved assuming the nuclear family. This really doesn’t address your questions, it simply frames modern liberalism so prominent in the social sciences in the broader context of cynicism. Still whatever else SSM means, it gets amplified by the Rule of Law drowning out the importance of the nuclear family to civilization.

Harumi

*gasp gasp*

Just...finished...reading...Man, how long can you people argue about this?

Whoo...now I have a headache from reading all that crap.

*leaves thread again to do something more worthwhile*

dk

FOIL: That's a terrible situation, but how is it materially different from this one:
The mother in a n-family (snip) .
dk: I offer an article later.

FOIL: Okay, I think that this helps a bit. Just to make sure I understand, though, you're saying that non-biologically related "families" cannot be "nuclear families", correct? So adoptive families would necessarily be "x-families", right?
dk: No I’m saying the Law ranks natural parent rights above adoptive parents rights.
dk: Elian Gonzales got sent back to Cuba because the natural parent rights superseded Third Party Rights, after Elian Gonzales’ mother died. I remember a custody battle some time ago. A n-family adopted a newborn baby born from a young mother that signed away her natural parental rights. She didn’t name the father on the birth certificate. Later the natural father surfaced to challenge for and won custody of the kid from the adoptive parents. The history of parental rights was complicated by no-fault divorce, joint custody, primary custody, single_mom_families,,, etc... Before no-fault divorce a wife and husband had to file against one another for a judgment and a finding of guilt to break the marriage contract. The guilty party’s status was diminished in the eyes of the court. Alimony, penalties, assets, child support and custody were weighed, divided, and awarded accordingly. The judgment of guilt made future appeals for custody a rarity. To make no fault divorce equitable natural parent rights were elevated to rank above the “child’s interests”, and the courts stepped in to speak for the child.

FOIL: I'm afraid I don't understand what it means to "cut the parent-child bond in favor of the x-family". Do you perhaps mean a situation analogous to the hypothetical you posed, above (with the lesbian mom)? If so, I have to ask how that is any different from the hypothetical I posed other than one is a SSM and one an OSM? In other words, the application of law seems to me identical in both, but your claim is that it would be different for both is SSM were a reality. I must admit I just don't see it yet.[/quote]
dk: I hope I’ve addressed this question adequately above.

FOIL: But the info you provided doesn't address the issue you raised. You said originally that responsibility for a child's actions could be assigned to a non-custodial third party. The information you posted refers only to the custody of those children. Perhaps I didn't make my request clear, but I was really looking for the source of your original statement: that responsibility for the actions of a minor child have been assigned to non-custodial third-parties.
dk: I doubt I used the word should because of the moral implications. In the legal dictionaries there’s a phrase “in loco parentis”, which means the person that speaks for a child in the place of a parent, guardian,,, etc.. In the context of a custody battle the contestants can’t speak for the child. An officer of the court is recognized to (or the Judge) speaks for the child[ren]. Precedence was set around 1900 to protect children from the criminal justice system, necessary to create a juvenile justice system. States rested loco parentis rights from parents to keep children out of adult jails. This power latter was expanded with child rights to empower social workers to take immediate custody of children from parents, to assume in loco parentis. How close government gets to our kids with loco parentis is a very fluid and emotional issue. In fact it was the student protests in the late 1960s and early 1970s that swept away the presumption that Universities acted in loco parentis for the health, welfare and morality of the students. On a particular day a school counselor, social worker, judge, policeman and parent from one hour to the next may assume in loco parentis for a child. At any rate, my reference to third party rights was confined to the context of a custody hearing where none of the contestants speak for the child. .
dk: Yeh, all children are dependent because they can’t speak for themselves in court, or sign legally binding contracts, vote,, etc… Who speaks for a child’s interests is therefore a matter of law.
(snip)
FOIL: I'm afraid, from my standpoint anyway, that it's not at all clear and it is quite ambigous. Third parties in the form of co-mom and co-dad already exist as step-parents. Your claim would appear to be that the sex of the co-mom/co-dad as related to the sex of the biological parent creates some sort of a difference in law or the application of law that does not exist today, but it's not at all clear to me why you say this.
dk: SSM couples don’t procreate, so SSM families w/ children are threatened by a natural parent rights. Many natural parents would exercise their natural parental rights against gay and lesbian married couples for moral reasons. In effect this would make SSM families second class families. To remedy the inequalities between nuclear families and SSM families the courts must elevate marital and cohabitation rights equal with biological rights. There is no other possible remedy because the court takes in loco parentis rights for a child in a custody hearing. .
dk: Well I hope its clearer. Hears an excerpt from an article I found …(snip)
FOIL: That much I understand. What I still don't have is the answer to the question I asked: do you believe that paternal and maternal bonds necessarily take precedence over whatever might be considered to be "children's rights"?
dk: What I believe really isn’t substantive in the context of this discussion. But I see the bonds between the child, husband, wife and father being strained by no-fault divorce, child custody laws, single mothers, IVF, and the child abuse. An unintended affect of single parent mothers has been to chain mother to their children to the detriment of both. SSM will break the chain between mother and child leaving the government to speak in loco parentis for the child. That’s what I believe will happen if SSM is legalized. The government will in effect speak for the child, and the parents will be reduced to chuffers, scapegoats and taxpayers deprived of the liberty to raise their own children. I’ve made a strong statement, and I think a strong case to support my belief but I can’t prove the sun will rise tomorrow.

dk: Ok, in my opinion the courts are in a poor position to determination what’s in the best interest of a child in the best circumstances, but in politically charged circumstances like SSM the adversarial nature of our court system reduces children into political pawns.

1. FOIL: Who would be in the "best position" to determine what's in the best interests of a child when whether or not the biological family provides an environment in keeping with those best interests is the matter in question? dk: The nuclear family speaks in the best interests of the child and our society has become hostile to the nuclear family. Any other supposition puts a government bureaucrat in loco parentis to speak for the child. FOIL: It certainly can't be the biological family and it's beyond dispute that this issue is a real one that occurs in the real world.
   dk: In a custody battle the government speaks for the child, and doesn’t know or necessarily even care about the child.
2. FOIL: Why, in your opinion, is SSM necessarily any more or less "politically charged" than such issues like "grandparent's rights", or "father's rights", or any issues that surround non-custodial biological parents? dk: I don’t think its more emotionally charged than parental or child rights. Talk to someone that’s been through these trials. I believe SSM marriage will be the match that ignites the compost heap that’s been simmering for years under the rule of family courts. The family courts have succumbed to political pressures to become hacks for political interests, and have violated the trust of children they claim to speak for.

FOIL: So, a clarification would be beneficial to me in understanding the principle you're using. You seem to be saying that biological standing trumps any other considerations, but I'm not sure. Is that in fact what you're arguing?
dk: I wouldn’t call it a principle, but a lack of principle. Modern democracies for the last 50 years have adopted the propositional attitude that technology supplants morality to perfect human nature. I think its pretty clear that technology doesn’t perfect people, but serves as a crutch and stick to dehumanizes people. Technology perfects productivity, not people. In fact morality doesn’t perfect people, it simply regulates destructive behaviors.

FOIL: I'm afraid your response really doesn't help me to understand your position. I'm not sure what's causing the ambiguity. Perhaps if I explain my motivation and rephrase the question:
I'm trying to determine what the "guiding principles" behind your line of argument are. You've said several things that would seem to lead me to believe that you give biological relationships priority over any other considerations. I'm merely trying to determine if that is the case.
dk: I can connect the dots, but that doesn’t mean the dots form a straight line.

FOIL: Okay, now to rephrase my question: In an objective setting, with conclusive evidence presented and considered, both of the parents in an n-family are determined to be abusive. By any objective consideration, the children could be at risk to their safety and a determination of best interests must be made. Which of the following options would you favor:
dk: I’m not a fan of multiple choice games. The hypothetical mysteriously paints the n-family as abusive, which you’ve done again. A quick check of the CDC at child risk factors notes the much assailed nuclear family mysteriously absent. Medical professions and dictionaries say, “Family stress: the disintegration of the nuclear family and its inherent support systems has been held to be associated with child abuse.” ----- ©1996-2003 MedicineNet, Inc Medical Dictionary: The USDA says, ”There's the nuclear family and the community family, and the well-being of each hinges directly on the other. As the definition of the American family expands, so does our definition of our roles and responsibilities to our communities. At land-grant universities, that means teaching local citizens how to help themselves, providing young people with positive outlets for their energy and compassion, and helping parents do a difficult job better.” ----- Economic Development and Quality of Life for People and Communities The CDC reports “Nearly 6 of 10 children living with a single mother were near of below the poverty line. About 45% of divorced mothers and 69% of never married mothers lived near or below the poverty line.” ----- Children with Single Parents -how they fare
dk: The above exercise presents a false dichotomy. Extraction of a child from an abusive family must contemplate thresholds of abuse, that balance the risks of no intervention against the damage inflicted by extraction and foster care. What nobody wants to contemplate is a directive to take a child from a loving but marginally abusive home to place a child into an uncaring degenerative and abusive foster care system. The vast majority of at risk kids come from single mothers head of household. To be honest I'd like to see a public campaign to market adoption to nuclear families as the best possible solution for teenage pregnancy. I don’t see where SSM has anything to contribute. Do you have any statistical evidence that SSM might have a positive affect upon the abusive foster care system or at risk single mother homes.

FOIL: I should also make clear that I don't consider this a "loaded" question. I'm not trying to "trap you" into saying anything you don't want to say. You can elaborate or clarify the question or answer in any way you like. I'm merely trying to determine what limits you would place on the preference of biological relationships.
dk: The high rank accorded to natural parents was a secondary effect of no-fault divorce. The cost of no fault divorce was at the expense of the “child’s interests”.
dk: It seems to me single mothers stick out like a sour thumb as a common thread. Again the politics and sociology collide making an adequate problem statement politically unacceptable.

FOIL: What really isn't clear is how that data supports a conclusion that the presence of the male biological parent is essential to child-rearing.
dk: You need to review the Moynihan Report, and perhaps review the correlations. It tells a very clear story people don’t want to hear.
dk: I don’t follow.

FOIL: The socio-economic factors, including the lack of male role models, in those "black inner city neighborhoods" exist in a complex inter-relationship. What the Moynihan report demonstrated, for example, was that the lack of "healthy male role models" in the population as studied correlated with negative outcomes, not that the "lack of healthy male role models" regardless of any other factors correlated with negative outcomes.
The Moynihan Report even implicitly recognizes this point on more than one occasion. It begins with a recitation of the history of oppression of blacks in American society, the emotional and psychological effects of which certainly cannot be discounted. Another instance you've even noted yourself:
dk: I’m not sure what you think you understand. Let me explain what Moynihan found. In the Great Depression the Bureau of Labor began to plot unemployment against the # of households on benefits. When unemployment went up, benefits rose, and visa versa. That makes sense, hey… This was very useful information, because social engineers in the DOL could turn up the benefits to match the needs generated by increasing unemployment.
The correlation coefficient between unemployment and benefits was so close to 1 that sociologists thought it was written in stone. Around 1960 that correlation coefficient started to drop, meaning unemployment was going down and the # of people collecting benefits was going up in black communities. The lines crossed in 1963. The only possible explanation is that black men left their families so that wives could collect benefits. That’s what Moynihan found, he found the Black Family disintegrating in response to more attractive government benefits. The rationale behind the social benefits was to improve the welfare of poor Black people oppressed by racism. This is a clear case of failed social engineering. MLK, NAACP, Malcolm X,,, etc… were tremendously hostile to the report. Why…. because it made them look like a bunch of dumb niggers asking for a handout. Not a popular label today, but in 1965 it was positively explosive with political consequences, there were race riots setting fire to most big cities across the country, and the report was issued right after the bloodiest riot in American history, the Watts Riot of 1965.
dk: I don’t follow, what explicit unmentionable?

FOIL: So, long story even longer, what I was asking was whether you did indeed have any information that supports the conclusion "missing biological fathers" are the sole or primary cause of negative outcomes.
dk: Correlation is inferential, not causal. Moynihan sent people out into to black communities to see what was happening, and sure enough the came back to Washington and reported, “Welfare benefits had gotten so attractive that families were breaking up to collect them.”
(snip)
dk: Sounds to me like you’re on a quest for a “I need a positive male role model” gene, good luck. Correlation coefficients provide inference, not proof of causation. Correlation is the best statistical evidence sociology has to offer. But when collaborated by a first hand account of trained observers causation is implied, but cannot be proven. These assholes all watched the disintegration of the Black Nuclear Family for political reasons, and the statistical evidence was confirmed by eye witness accounts. A historical perspective supports the conclusion, “People, men and women, need their family more than government benefits, but will abandon family for government benefits when the benefits become sufficiently attractive.” That’s the unseemly story of what happens when political interests collide with sociology. That’s why sociology has become such an unreliable science, and social engineering creates more problems than it solves. This was analogous to the economic stagnation Carter faced in the late 1970s. You seem unable to wrap your mind around these simple facts, and I don’t understand what’s so difficult.

FOIL: For example, is there any data that shows that children in single-female-parent households have the same relative risk outcome regardless of socio-economic status? IOW, do the children of rich, white single-female-parent families have the same probability of at-risk status as the children of poor, black single-white-female-parent families?
dk: Nobody has discovered an “I need a daddy a gene”, or a hormone the activates, “I need a government stipend”. I suppose it is possible such a gene and/or hormone might exist to rationally explain unemployment, the nuclear family and government welfare benefits, but I doubt it. By the way nobody has found a sexual orientation gene or hormone either. Can you imagine undergoing genetic therapy to become a faithful happy father? These appear to be political not biological or social issues. Dig it, social engineering is a political issue detached from science. In fact homosexuality was taken off the APA’s list of disorders by a simple vote at a meeting, absent any real evidence or even a consensus of the body politic. In fact the only scientific evidence is the much vaunted “sexo meter” Kinsey theorized about and to this day there’s is no physical evidence to support Kinsey’s “sexo meter”. To boot, Kinsey’s research, methods, data and ethics have garnered severe criticism in subsequent peer reviews. Truth stranger than fiction.