Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Monday, May 21, 2012

A Principled defense of Traditional Marriage; Two Arguments

Kelly O'Connell's recent article raises the above question and provides a number of defenses re: traditional marriage. Being that Western society is becoming increasingly irreligious, I won't even touch upon the religious arguments raised by Ms. O'Connell for the simple fact that in today's world, religious arguments are completely lost upon people who have almost no grounding in Biblical history or study. John Sentamu, the archbishop of York, (above) recently presented a balanced, civil and principled argument against gay marriage (without appealing to religion) in which he basically stated redefining marriage to include same-sex couples 'would benefit nobody'...

"I firmly believe that redefining marriage to embrace same-sex relationships would mean diminishing the meaning of marriage for most people, with very little if anything gained for homosexual people. If I am right, in the long term we would all be losers.

Of course, if someone should ask, "how will my marriage be affected if couples of the same sex can marry?", the answer is: not at all. But let me put the question another way: what sort of a society would we have if we came to see all family relationships primarily in terms of equal rights? The family is designed to meet the different needs of its different members in different ways. It is the model of the just society that responds intelligently to differences rather than treating everyone the same...

Unless one believes that every difference between the sexes is a mere social construct, the question of equality between the sexes cannot be completely addressed by the paradigm of racial equality. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not discriminatory against same-sex couples. What I am pressing for is a kind of social pluralism that does not degenerate into a fancy-free individualism."

And how is Archbishop Sentamu treated for daring to differ with the enlightened idealogues of The New World Order? He's advocating 'bigotry' of course. No dissent, no matter how well laid out and completely absent of ill will is allowed being that the more vocal supporters of gay marriage obviously ascribe to the viewpoint of 'gay marriage uber alles'.

Ms. O'Connell meanwhile, cites some statistics in her defense of traditional marriage such as the following...

  • 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census)—5 times the average.

  • 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes—32 times the average.

  • 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes—20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)

  • 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes—14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)

  • 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes—9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)

  • 70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes—9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)

  • 85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes—20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)

    "Now, one can assume that a female playing the male role in a lesbian relationship would erase this problem, if such a dynamic exists. But frankly, why would a female attempting to act masculine take the place of a real man? This assumes that the problem with being fatherless is due entirely to there being only half a couple responsible for the children. It also assumes men and women are utterly interchangeable. And yet we know for a fact that men and women, even when undertaking the same tasks, are still radically different (see here).

    It also assumes that male and female homosexual couples model male and female behavior effectively, which is crucial since young children learn much by mimicking. In fact, many experts are concerned that gay parenting will be brought in with anodyne claims of its harmlessness, and only after it becomes an institution, will we be told it is harmful but its too late to call it off. But what could possibly be done after it is legally and culturally established as a norm if it is found deleterious? For instance, in dealing with cases which came before a court, one author wrote:

    "A systematic analysis of appeals court cases or cases cited in those appeals cases regarding custody of children in which a homosexual parent was involved. Here, 82% of the homosexual vs 18% of the heterosexual parents and 54% of the homosexual’s associates vs 19% of the heterosexuals’ associates were recorded as having poor character in cases involving a homosexual claimant."

When taken as a whole, all of this adds up to criteria in which a reasonable person could say 'Wait a minute, let's put the brakes on this whole 'gay marriage' thing and study the effects of such institutions on a society before rushing forward, pell-mell style, utilizing emotional rather than scientific arguments in this case'. That's if that reasonable person doesn't mind being accussed of hatred for daring lift their head on this subject.


Ross said...

Civil unions are a stopgap measure until such a time as same sex marriage is legalised. Do you agree?

JD Curtis said...

I believe a significant percentage of gay activists will settle for nothing less than the redefinition of the word 'marriage'

GentleSkeptic said...

Civil unions would be a welcome stopgap. Unfortunately, left unchecked, the right wing won't even allow those.

Thersites said...

You REALLY DON'T want scientists to do "studies" on this subject. We'd get the same kind of politicized "science" from gay activists that lead to the dire predictions of "global warming" or the risks of contracting AIDS from acts of "reproductive" sexual relations (which for some reason never factor in acts of heterosexual sodomy).

Money will buy you whatever result you want to hear.... but mostly... a need to do MORE and BIGGER science.

Thersites said...

btw - I should probably add, that the greatest risk of homosexual "marrriage" would come from heterosexuals themselves, with every form of "sodomy" being sanctioned, how long would it take before America became statistically like South Africa in terms of AIDS cases?

It is my personal belief that the vast majority of these cases are the result of women substituting acts of sodomy for heterosexual intercourse... as a "cultural" means of preventing pregnancy...

And if western women were now "permitted" to indulge themselves in this kind of culturally sanctioned behaviour, it wouldn't take long for America to be facing similar statistics.

GentleSkeptic said...

I wholeheartedly agree that all of these concerns are valid and well-worth consideration and inquiry. Which is why today is such a great day for you and your readers, JD. Get ready to celebrate!

It turns out that reasonable people have, in fact, been studying "the effects of such institutions on a society" for a while now…for about 30 years, actually. Quite well-known and respected reasonable people, and big organizations of accredited professionals, too.

Are you ready? Here's what they would like to share with you:

The American Academy of Pediatrics: "There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment."

The American Psychiatric Association: "Numerous studies over the last three decades consistently demonstrate that children raised by gay or lesbian parents exhibit the same level of emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as children raised by heterosexual parents. This research indicates that optimal development for children is based not on the sexual orientation of the parents, but on stable attachments to committed and nurturing adults. The research also shows that children who have two parents, regardless of the parents’ sexual orientations, do better than children with only one parent."

The American Psychological Association: "There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation (Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children."

The American Psychoanalytic Association: "Gay and lesbian individuals and couples are capable of meeting the best interest of the child and should be afforded the same rights and should accept the same responsibilities as heterosexual parents."

The Child Welfare League of America: "Any attempt to preclude or prevent gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals or couples from parenting, based solely on their sexual orientation, is not in the best interest of children."

GentleSkeptic said...

I know: you must be so relieved! And guess what? To borrow a phrase… it gets better! Here are some relevant studies that will put your mind even more at ease:

Gay & Lesbian Parenting (2005)

A Meta-Analysis of Developmental Outcomes for Children of Same-Sex and Heterosexual Parents (2008)

Psychosocial adjustment among children conceived via donor insemination by lesbian and heterosexual mothers. (1998)

Children’s Gender Identity in Lesbian and Heterosexual Two-Parent Families (2009)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20879687>Nontraditional families and childhood progress through school. (2010)

Parent-Child Interaction Styles Between Gay and Lesbian Parents and Their Adopted Children. (2007)

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/126/1/28.abstract>U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents (2010)

Wow. I can only imagine the weight that's been lifted from your shoulders. I'm sure your readers, as well, will appreciate so much non-emotional, reasonable, and scientific argument concerning this issue of grave importance.

Of course, I suppose you could just dismiss or reject all of this overwhelming reasonable, scientific evidence as "politicized"…

Speedy G said...

Because the science has been politicized. Half of the researchers in the cited studies are homosexuals.

The APA has a higher ratio of pederasts to researchers than any other scientific organization in the world.

I could pull out countering studies by the FRC, but then, YOU would call THEM "politicized".

Speedy G said...

But then I suppose that the "Journal of GLBT Family Studies" is above politics...

Speedy G said...

But don't believe me...

Many Americans have been shocked by reports about a recent pro-pedophilia conference in Baltimore in which psychiatrists and other mental-health professionals, representing institutions like Harvard and Johns Hopkins, sought to present pedophilia in a sympathetic and even positive light. But why should this surprise us?

Academic articles in scholarly journals have been presenting pedophilia in a sympathetic light for years, and, as Matthew Cullinan Hoffman noted, the American Psychiatric Association, or APA, released a report in 1998 "claiming that the 'negative potential' of adult sex with children was 'overstated' and that 'the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from their child sexual abuse experiences.' It even claimed that large numbers of the victims reported that their experiences were 'positive,' and suggested that the phrase 'child sex abuse' be replaced with 'adult-child sex.'" Others have coined the more disgusting term "intergenerational intimacy."

The APA's report was so disturbing that it drew an official rebuke from Congress, yet the pro-pedophile (or pro-pederast) push continues. In fact, some psychiatric leaders, like Dr. Richard Green, who were instrumental in removing homosexuality from the APA's list of mental disorders in 1973, have been fighting to remove pedophilia as well.

Ross said...

Somebody I know who has written extensively about this issue has discovered that research from the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association shows that the rates of STI infection, substance abuse, depression and anxiety, alcohol dependence, tobacco use, are higher in the gay and lesbian community than in the general population.

If this research originated from a faith based organization, it would be easy to take issue with it, but it does not.

GentleSkeptic said...

Half of the researchers in the cited studies are homosexuals.

Citation? And how do you account for the alleged bias in the other half of researchers? How, also, do you account for the nothing-but-"conservative"-and-wnd-related sources for your big pull-quote? I'm sure that's not at ALL politicized, except that all of the Google results are conservative sites.

Somebody I know who has written extensively…

Well, you know what WON'T help those people? Making sure they can't legally protect their relationships and families.

Research points to issues encountered from an early age, such as LGBT people being targeted for bullying, assault, and discrimination, as contributing significantly to depression, suicide and other mental health issues in adulthood. Social research suggests that LGBT experience discriminatory practices in accessing healthcare. source

Well, then; it looks like science isn't really what this is about, and won't really answer the questions JD is so concerned about.

So DO let's stop pretending this is about being principled, scientific and rational, shall we? You're not fooling anyone.

GentleSkeptic said...

Ross says that "the rates of … substance abuse… are higher in the gay and lesbian community than in the general population." Does Ross believe that this is legitimate grounds for denying the right to marry?

By this logic, we could reasonably withhold marriage rights from Native Americans, 18–21-year-olds, veterans with mental illness, and Rhode Islanders.

Are you prepared to draft referendums and head to the ballot box to do that?

GentleSkeptic said...

Now, a 'reasonable' person might see—on the one hand—five of America's leading relevant national professional pediatric, psychology, and psychiatry organizations weighing in in favor of same-sex parenting, and—on the other—"Speedy 'All-of-My-Thoughts-Are-Illusions' G." weighing in against same-sex parenting with a single report from the illustrious conservative tabloid WorldNetDaily and conclude…

I dunno, JD. What would a 'reasonable' person conclude?

JD Curtis said...

How many Rhode Islanders are engaging in self-destructive behavior and thus have direct control over their health?

How many Native Americans won't be Native Americans next year?

If Wayne Besem is perfectly willing to admit that the APA changed it's guidelines due to pressure rather than research, how many of the other organizations are then thoroughly compromised?

JD Curtis said...


Ten Things Gay Men Should discuss with Their Healthcare Provider

You were saying GS?

Ross said...

GS, I've deliberately not named the author whose work I refer to because he gets enough hate mail from militant gay activists as it is, and I don't want to generate any more for him.

He is a prolific author and researcher in the field of family studies, and has had work published in peer reviewed journals.

As for the rest of your comments, they're obfuscation, and did you know that I'm not American?

If you don't like the results of a study, take it up with its authors at the GLMA, not me.

GentleSkeptic said...

Happy Pride.