Homosexual “Marriage” Part Two
I would like to respond to a few claims that were made during last weekend??s Pundit Review Radio Show where we discussed homosexual ??marriage? and the upcoming ballot initiative to vote on a Constitutional Amendment to protect traditional male-female marriage in 2008.
First, it was claimed that studies are not relevant when talking about issues that involve ??people? such as homosexual ??marriage.? According to the argument put forth by my friend and co-host Kevin, all studies and polls are bogus and can be made to reveal whatever you want them to. I agree, some are bogus and prone to manipulation and distortion. However, as somebody who deals with scientific data every day, I know that those studies and clinical trials with high degrees of statistical significance (greater than 95%) are highly predictive and relevant. Also, studies which are published in peer reviewed highly esteemed scientific journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine, Medical Journal of Homosexuality, Lancet, and Journal of American Medical Association are incredibly difficult to get publicshed in. Only the highest quality cliical trails and scientific papers are published in these publications. It is easy to understand why many pro homo-marriage advocates seek to discredit ??studies? since the overwhelming amount of empirical evidence has demonstrated that hetero-marriage is the optimum family configuration for the rearing of healthy societies and healthy well adjusted children.
To this point, my friend and co-host Kevin comments:
??Here is why I don??t like studies in debates. Because I can point you to the US Department of Health and Human Service web site to read studies that say the following,
??Courts have expressed concern that children raised by gay and lesbian parents may have difficulties with their personal and psychological development, self-esteem, and social and peer relationships. Because of this concern, researchers have focused on children??s development in gay and lesbian families.
The studies conclude that children of gay or lesbian parents are no different than their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents. In ??Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents,? a 1992 article in Child Development, Charlotte Patterson states, ??Despite dire predictions about children based on well-known theories of psychosocial development, and despite the accumulation of a substantial body of research investigating these issues, not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.?
Psychiatrist Laurintine Fromm, of the Institute of Pennsylvania Hospital, agrees with that finding. ??[The] literature?does not indicate that these children fare any worse [than those of heterosexual parents] in any area of psychological development or sexual identity formation. A parent??s capacity to be respectful and supportive of the child??s autonomy and to maintain her own intimate attachments, far outweighs the influence of the parent??s sexual orientation alone.?
http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/f_gay/f_gayb.cfm
Anyone can point to studies. What I will point to are the thousands of well adjusted kids out there who were raised by gay parents. Those aren??t stats, they are people. People who know through experience that the quality of the person doing the child raising is far, far more important that the sexual preference of the parent.
Kevin is correct that ??anyone can point to studies.? Unfortunately the ??studies? that the Dept of Health and Human Services cites above comes from the American Academy of Pediatrics?? (AAP) 2002 report that is flawed and inconclusive. The report itself cautioned that ??the small and non-representative samples studied and the relatively young age of most of the children suggest some reserve,? and that ??Research exploring the diversity of parental relationships among gay and lesbian parents is just beginning.? Thus, the report??s conclusion that ??a growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual,? contradicts the fact that the authors of the study acknowledge the newness of the research.
The report concludes that the same-sex families closely resemble step-families formed after heterosexual couples divorce. Strong empirical evidence exists that suggests that children fare better with a single biological parent than in a step-family. Thus, if children raised in same-sex homes resemble children raised in step and divorced families as the AAP Technical Report concludes, there is very little research to indicate that same sex parenting is healthy for children. According to the AAP Technical Report:
Step-parents provide less warmth and communicate less with their children than do biological parents.
Children living with step-families are likely to have significantly greater ??emotional, behavioral, and academic problems? than children living with their biological mother and father.
Pre-school children who live with one biological parent and one step parent are 40 times more likely to become a victim of abuse than children living with a biological mother and father.
Compared to children in biological homes and even single-parent homes, ??step-children are not merely disadvantaged, but imperiled.?
Children residing in a home with a step-parent are 8 times more likely to die from maltreatment than children living with 2 biological parents.
Judith Wallerstein (UC Berkeley) and Mavis Hetherington (U of Virginia), in one of the most comprehensive studies ever completed on the impacts of divorce concluded that divorce impacts children more dramatically and for longer periods of time than most scholars and child psychologists ever conceived.
Judith Wallerstein found, in her 25-year extensive study on the effects of divorce on children, that ??divorce is a long-term crisis that was affect the psychological profile of an entire generation.? and that almost half of the children that she observed were ??worried, underachieving, self-deprecating, and sometimes angry.?
National studies show that children from divorced and remarried families are more aggressive toward their parents and teachers, experience more depression, have more learning difficulties, are two to three times more likely to be referred for psychological help at school than their peers from intact families. More of them end up in mental health care clinics, have earlier sexual activity, have more children out of wed lock, have less marriage and more divorce, and experience more psychological problems than children of intact marriages.?
If children raised in same-sex households resemble those in step and divorced families as the AAP Technical Report suggests than it is clear that there is little hard clinical data to suggest that these ??same-sex? family configurations would be a healthy environment for children. For the AAP to suggest that ??a growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.? is contrary to their own mission of ??attaining physical, mental, and social health and well-being for all infants, children, adolescents, and young adults.?
I would challenge anybody to point to any peer reviewed scientific studies or research that concludes that children raised in homosexual households fare equally with those raised in hetero-family homes. In my opinion, the non-existence of any hard data to reinforce their central claim explains why people don??t want to ??talk about studies.? I wouldn??t either if I didn??t have any that substantiated my central position.
Moreover, research comparing outcomes in child well-being in same-sex partnering homes and traditional mother/father homes is notoriously inconclusive.
Dr. Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai, professionals in quantitative analysis conducted a study for the Marriage Law Project in Washington D.C. which analyzed 49 empirical studies on same-sex partnering. They concluded that there was no basis to the assertion that children raised by homosexual families look just like those raised by heterosexual parents.
Most of the studies they analyzed were small and unrepresentative study samples with non-existent or inadequate comparison groups. Authors of 48 of the 49 studies wished to influence public policy in support of homosexual families. Steven Nock, Professor of Sociology at the University of Virginia and a member of the editorial board of Journal of Marriage and Family concluded that: ??the current literature on lesbian mothering is inadequate to permit any conclusions to be drawn. None had a probability sample. All used inappropriate statistics given the sample sizes obtained. All had biased samples. Sample sizes were consistently small? I do not believe that this collection of articles indicates that lesbian and heterosexual mothers are similar. In fact, from a scientific perspective, the evidence confirms nothing about the quality of gay parents.?
The current research comparing the outcomes of children raised in homosexual homes and in traditional heterosexual homes is young, plagued with methodological problems, and therefore inconclusive. Homosexual marriage/ adoption is an unproven social experiment that is historically and culturally radical. What the vast majority of empirical data does show is that the optimal environment for the healthy development of children is by two heterosexual biological parents.
This is one of the primary reasons that homosexual ??marriage? is so concerning to me. When ??homosexual marriage? is given equal legal standing with heterosexual marriage, the two ??families? will be deemed, by law, to be equally conducive to child rearing which again contradicts the overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary. We would be saying motherless and fatherless families are not important and that as Kevin claims:
???it is more important to have quality people who love and care for the kids, who spend the time required and attends to their needs. Those are the qualities that make a good parent, not who you are sleeping with.?
This actually contradicts Kevin??s earlier statement that ??I certainly agree that the ideal situation to raise a child is when a loving, committed, attentive husband and wife raise the child together. That is ideal. ” But let??s deal with a common claim by those who say it only ??takes a village? to raise children, that all that matters is that children have ??loving? care-takers regardless of the family configuration. Family configuration is not an inconsequential factor in the optimal raising of children. In fact, it is the most important determinant of how that child will develop physically and emotionally.
Of all the essential elements which lead to a child??s proper development (access to health care, nutrition, good schools, safe neighborhoods, and love) the most important factor is the marital status of the parents. According to Dr. Pitirim Sorokin, founder and first chair of the Sociology Department at Harvard, proclaimed the importance of married parents half a decade ago:
??The most essential socio-cultural patterning of a newborn human organism is achieved by the family. It is the first and most efficient sculptor of human material, shaping the physical, behavioral, mental, moral and socio-cultural characteristics of practically every individual. ?From remotest past, married parents have been the most effective teachers of their children.?
David Ellwood, Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University notes that:
“The vast majority of children who are raised entirely in a two-parent home will never be poor during childhood. By contrast, the vast majority of children who spend time in a single parent home will experience poverty.?
While it is not always possible to have the optimum family configuration (biological male and female at home), I believe that we as a society should not intentionally create and encourage “alternative homosexual families” that at best are on par with single parent/step parent family configurations with regard to how children are cared for. The way to encourage better marriage and healthier children is not to radically redefine the definition of marriage. A good place to start would be dealing with the “No Fault” divorce laws which have made divorce far too easy. Another would be to seriously consider mandatory family counseling for couples seking divorce.
On another topic that we discussed, while I respect the right of members of the same sex to live together and engage in whatever lawful sexual behavior they so choose, homosexuals don??t have any constitutional ??right? to marry members of the same sex. Marriage is not a ??civil right? as many including our guest on our radio show Sunday night Mark Solomon, Political Director for Mass Equality- the pro-homosexual “marrige”organization who opposes the constitutional amendment banning same sex ??marriage.?
Marriage is a legal privilege regulated by the state with specifically enumerated limitations. One man can??t legally marry more than one woman, fathers can??t marry their daughters, and group Polyamourous ??marriages? are illegal. Since marriage is a legal union, those entering into it must comply with the law. Only ??we the people? and our elected representatives have the constitutional authority to make these laws- defining what does and does not comprise marriage. For 5000 years the institution of marriage has always meant the union of one man and one woman. Now a diminutive group of homosexual ??marriage? activists have challenged the legal definition of marriage and have found a willing accomplice in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court which in 2002 found a ??right to homosexual marriage? in our state constitution never seen in two centuries prior.
While the Court has the ??right? to hand down such rulings regardless of history or legal precedent, the people of the state have the constitutional legal authority to specifically amend the constitution as 40 other states have done- to specify that marriage is the exclusive union of one man and one woman.
If there are those who believe that such an amendment violates specific provisions of the Constitution , they have every right to challenge the amendment right up to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Mark argued on the show that voters don??t have a right to amend the constitution that denies rights to a specific group and would be a form of discrimination. These two claims are also on their website www.massequality.org.
As to the first point, it is absurd to suggest that any sovereign state does not have the right to amend its constitution. As to the second claim, I wonder if Mark would argue that the 13th Amendment which ended slavery was unconstitutional since slave owners were denied the ??right? to own slaves.
No individual or group in our country has unlimited ??rights.? As a matter of fact, all laws in one way or another discriminate in that they set limitations and boundaries on specific behaviors and actions. The 1st Amendment??s freedom of speech is limited as is the 2nd Amendment??s right to ??bear arms.?
Similarly, since all of our laws are based on moral preferences of the citizenry and their elected representatives, laws enacted by the legislative bodies reflect the collective morality of the people.
The vast majority of Americans prefer to maintain and protect the traditional male-female exclusive definition of marriage. Unless pro homosexual ??marriage? advocates can demonstrate that the laws such as DOMA and others that protect traditional hetero marriage are unconstitutional , then we the people of the United States of America have every ??right? to have our moral preferences enshrined into law. Period. That??s how our Representative Constitutional Democracy works.
As to why I personally oppose homosexual marriage-aside from my concerns regarding the judiciary usurping the legislative authority of ??we the people,? I like most Bible believing Christians believe that homosexuality is sinful behavior that is greatly offensive to God and violates His natural law. While I have acquaintances who practiced the homosexual lifestyle, I also personally know people who have turned away from it recognizing how self destructive, unhealthy, and dangerous it was in their lives.
While I don??t deny that some homosexual couples can live together- as can some polyamoroous and polygamous ??couples? can- in ??committed? relationships, after living in San Francisco for almost 12 years having known hundreds of homosexuals, I also know that the vast majority of them reject the concept of monogamy and marriage itself. While I am happy for anybody involved in any type of “committed” relationships whether sexual or platonic, I believe that it is largely irrelevant as to the question whether we as a society should redefine marriage.
While I daily attempt to? love the sinner and hate the sin,? I try to live my Judeo-Christian values out. How can any Christian claim to follow Jesus Christ if they fail to speak the truth in love and call sin what it is-sin pure and simple? Both Old and New testaments condemn homosexuality as highly offensive to God. While as Christians we are to love people unconditionally, we are also expected to hate sin just as much as God does. To glamorize and elevate it by calling it just another ??alternative life-style choice? which is ??normal and healthy? would be to deny empirical evidence to the contrary as well as contradict what God says about homosexuality in the Bible which serves as the foundation of my life and many millions of Christians around the world.
It would be hypocritical of me to say that as somebody who believes that the Bible is the inspired word of God that overtly condemns and rejects homosexuality that I support homosexual marriage. To do so would be to take part in tacitly condoning the behavior itself. How can people condone and even encourage behavior which they know to be physically, mentally, and spiritually destructive to other human beings. I believe what God says first and foremost. He is my authority. While it may not be politically correct for me not to support homosexual ??marriage? I am more interested in preserving the world??s oldest and most important God given institution man has ever known. Although our guest Mark, from Mass Equaltiy claimed that the decision to allow homosexual marriage had come and gone and nobody really cared, I believe that Americans care deeply about preserving what has been the cornerstone of Western civilization. We??ll find out soon enough where the people of Massachussetts stand on this crucial issue.
November 2nd, 2005 at 9:58 am
You hit the nail on the head Gregg. This issue of homosexual child rearing is too new to conclusively say it is ‘healthy’. Why we need to perform these social experiments on our children is beyond me. Like I have been arguing with Kevin in the first part of this argument near the bottom of your blog site, these social experiments, like that of no fault divorce, need not be conducted because the end result is the delapitation of our children’s well being. There is too much conclusive evidence over many years that heterosexual child rearing works. Why fix something that is not broken? As I said earlier to Kevin, the child is the one who suffers with all the confusing amount of people coming and going in a same-sex household. Not all same-sex household go thru this, but a majority of them do which is conclusive by the data that I presented.
This is a quote from Michelangelo Signorile in OUT magazine, a leading voice in the gay community:
“The trick is, gay leaders and pundits must stop watering the issue down - this is simply about equality for gay couples - and offer same-sex marriage for what it is: an opportunity to reconstruct a traditionally homophobic institution by bringing it to our more equitable queer value system…a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture….Our gay leaders must acknowledge that gay marriage is just as radical and transformative as the religious Right contends it is.”
Not one civil rights leader ever advocated for same-sex marriage as a fundamental human right because it isn’t a fundamental human right. Instead, the “equality” argument was deliberately picked up by the gay political community as a rhetorical device to gain advantage among those outside of their constituency. Michelangelo Signorile goes on to explain in his essay that “freedom to marry” was “actually something that activists began using on the advice of a Los Angeles PR firm based on how well they believed it would play in the heterosexual mainstream.” If this is all they have to ride on, do we need our children to go through experiments in order to use a PR firms advice to ??play in the heterosexual mainstream??? The same-sex ??marriage?? advocates try and try again to make this an equality issues when it is all about the idea to receive benefits at their place of employment. Do we really need to be so radical to make a point? Do our children need to go through this torment in order to satisfy selfish needs, either sexually or economically? Let??s stop this nonsense and get back to what really matters…peace on this confusing earth.
November 2nd, 2005 at 10:36 pm
If the purpose of marriage is to procreate, we should not allow ANYONE who is unwilling of unable to procreate to marry. Otherwise there is NO meaning in the puporported reason for marriage.
November 3rd, 2005 at 4:40 pm
My 5 cents (inflation):
We can find studies to fit any point of view we like if we look hard enough. I’m sure a study of the sexual behavior of straight people in Amsterdam might prove interesting, for example.
I prefer to refer to personal experience. I know several married (no quotes) gay couples (I’ll say gay, less typing). Many of them even have children. The children I know in these circumstances are as well adjusted as–or better so than– many of the children from straight marriages I know. Of course, they are forunate enough to live in neighborhoods where “kindness and respect for human differences” are the watchwords. Again, I can only speak from personal experience, which tells me that wholesale condemning of “non-traditional” families as unworkable is bull-hockey.
The gay lifestyle as out of mainstream, not monogamous? Gays I know who feel accepted in their communities don’t act like that (any more than straight folks– gay or straight, when you’re young and irresponsible, you’re young and irresponsible). The more outrageous behaviors are spring from the same well as other groups that act out– they feel threatened by the mainstream community that does not accept them, and create their own sub-culture. People thrown out of their homes at 17 for any reason, including being unacceptably gay, are more likely to be homeless drug addicts or street hustlers.
Gay “marriage” as equal rights? Yes, when it comes to health benefits for life partners, visitation rights in health care facilities, estate planning, etc. Marriage is often the only way to attain these. Civil unions maybe– if you can prove to me that civil unions will provide the exact same benefits– civil benefits– that marriage allows, then I can tell you that most gays will settle for that.
While on the subject of “civil”– I’m not sure if you are lumping church marriage in with civil marriage– they are 2 distinct things. Anyone who wants the Catholic Church (or most any religious sect) to endorse gay marriage is out of their minds to being with.
Being gay as a “sin”– I gave up on interpreting the Bible literally long ago. Taking literally the Word of God filtered throught he filthy Hand of Man (no anti-bacterial soap back then), then translated multiple times, is a leap of faith– not in God, but in Man. there have been too many reasonable arguments from both sides on what the Bible says on the issue to take a definitive lecture from any church. Even the venerated King James Version, while of beautiful language, is little more than an imperfect translation of what was originally set down (I should say, not King James, but the scholars he employed– James was too busy taking an interest in the young male members of his court, according to many accounts– but I digress)
That’s long enough a post for now– if I have any “cents” left over I will donate them to the Aids Action Committee
November 4th, 2005 at 9:08 am
Doug H,
I will deal with other parts of your commentary later. But for now I must respond to your comment:
“Being gay as a ??sin??? I gave up on interpreting the Bible literally long ago. Taking literally the Word of God filtered throught he filthy Hand of Man (no anti-bacterial soap back then), then translated multiple times, is a leap of faith?? not in God, but in Man. there have been too many reasonable arguments from both sides on what the Bible says on the issue to take a definitive lecture from any church. Even the venerated King James Version, while of beautiful language, is little more than an imperfect translation of what was originally set down (I should say, not King James, but the scholars he employed?? James was too busy taking an interest in the young male members of his court, according to many accounts?? but I digress)”
The authenticity of the Bible as the most important book in history in that it has been translated into more languages, published in more editions, printed in more copies, and read by mroe people than any other book in history has been well established.
For anybody to reject it and call it a “collection of fables” without reading it is a very smug, arrogant, and, frankly, ignorant position. Remember, ignorance often breeds arrogance. (I’m talking in general, not to you as i don’t know if you have ever read it)
To your point about the Bible being “filtered through the filthy hands of man,” By the standards of antiquity, the Bible is an amazingly credible document (5,750 Greek original manuscripts of the New Testament and 25,000 more copies on other translations. The earliest manuscript, John’s Gospel, dated AD 117-138 (The John Rylands Papyri manuscript) was written in 90 AD. By contrast the earliest manuscripts of Plato were 1,300 years after Plato lived, The Greek dramatists- written 1,400 years after they lived, and Homer and the Classic odyssey writte 2,200 years after Homer lived.
No other ancient writing of any kind anywhere rests on as solid a foundation as does the Bible. In fact if we were to throw out the Bible as being textually uncertain, we would have to do away with all ancient history- and would have to say we know absolutely nothing about anything that happened in the world prior to 1000 AD.
The Bible is the authentic inspired word of God which is the most authenticated book in human history. I would challenge any skeptic to proove otherwise.They can’t. Because even agnostics and atheists acknowledge its authenticity by the standards of antiquity.
The amazing thing about the Bible is that the Bibles that we have now are closer to the original manuscripts than any other work of antiquity. This is no “leap of faith.” What is a “leap of faith” is to reject the Bible based on its historical authenticity by any standards of antiquity. Can you point cite the “imperfect translations” about which you allude?
The fact of the matter is that homosexuality is described definitively as sinful behavior in both old and new covenants. There is no need to “interpret” them. No credible biblical scholars have ever claimed that anything in the Bible actually points to homosexuality as being anything other than sinful behavior. There is no ambiguity here. But if you reject the Bible as being a bunch of ambiguous “fables” than that is a choice you make. I too rejected the Bible as such until I actually read it. Have you read the Bible in its entirety? While the Jewish prophets and Jesus himself use figurative speech- not to be taken literally- homosexuality itlself is very clearly defined as being sinful behavior which perverts God’s intended natural law and plan for mankind. We can accept that or reject it. That is the choice God has given us.
At any rate, I appreciate your thoughtful input. Let’s keep the converstaion going.
Gregg J
November 4th, 2005 at 9:30 am
I will admit to being a little snide on the Bible stuff– to boil my thoughts down more directly to the issue, I’ll just repeat that reasonable people have disagreed on what the Bible says about homosexuality, and will continue to do so.
I didn’t call the Bible a “collection of fables,” so please don’t ascribe that to me. And yes I have read it (New English Translation was the most common version I have had).
As for the Bible itself, I take it as a collection of messages– taking every word literally I find difficult as even the four Gospels comflict each other on some of the details. Throw out the Bible? No. Allow for human interpretation (from translator and reader)? Yes. This is one reason we have so many Christian sects (aside from Henry VIII’s burning need for a divorce).
November 4th, 2005 at 2:58 pm
Doug H,
Good points. My only question to you is where the different “interpretations” and “discrepencies” regardiang Homosexuality in the Bible are. While I have acknowledged that the Prophets from Moses to Jesus to Paul use symbolism, allegory, and other figurative language as well as metaphors, similes, and irony, all clearly condemn homosexuality as sinful behavior in plain direct speech. God did not leave much room for debate on this one. So from a Judeo-Christian perspective there is no ambiguity concerning homonsexuality. I say that in truth and in love. Not to codemn the homosexual only the behavior which from a Bilical Judeo Christian perspective in uneqivocally sinful behavior.
On another point you claim:
“We can find studies to fit any point of view we like if we look hard enough. I??m sure a study of the sexual behavior of straight people in Amsterdam might prove interesting, for example.”
By that line of logic, there could be no clinical trials or scientific studies that could be authenticated or have any degree of relevant predictive analytical value as a useful tool in analyzing social,political, physiological, or sexual behavior related issues. If all can be manipulated than why should any be useful in these endeavors?
Again, as I said in my main post, studies that lack adequate control arms, subsequent enrollment, that are confined to single centers, which are non-randomized, non-blinded which don’t reach statistical significance, which are not peer reviewed cannot be trusted as determinitive and predictive of future behavioral trends.
However, there is a plethora of empirical evidence that has demonstrated that there are credible peer reviewed scientific studies which have high predictive value (i.e. they correlate to “real world” experience.)
The fact that those on the pro homo marriage side claim “studies” can all be distorted and manipulated and have no bearing on any issues of import and relevance sucha s homo marriage etc… That is primarily the result of the fact that the peer reviewed credible studies have contradicted the cliams of the homo marriage (I say homo for brevity) proponents. I am not surpirsed therefore that they claim the studies should not hvae any bearing on the debate.
As I have noted the vast majorty of studies have shown that homosexual behavior is self-destructive and not conducive to child rearing any more than a step family configuartion or singel parent configurations which is not a very high standard to emulate. Should we ignore this data when deciding such issues as wheter to expand the definition of marriage?
To David’s commnet:
“If the purpose of marriage is to procreate, we should not allow ANYONE who is unwilling of unable to procreate to marry. Otherwise there is NO meaning in the puporported reason for marriage. ”
I wold only say that the fact that some are unable to procreate or choose not to is not a valid argument ofr redefining the institution of marriage. The fact that some fail a test does not mean the test (or standard by which achievement in a certain are is measured)is flawed.
Gregg J
November 5th, 2005 at 8:56 am
Saturday Blog Round-up - Oreos and Da Vinci!
Happy Saturday!
I’m in South Carolina celebrating with former high school classmates this week. I’ve been out of high school 20 years. Most of the poeple are married with children, but none of us looks like we’ve been out of high sc…
November 5th, 2005 at 12:48 pm
Hi,
I found your link at LaShawn Barber’s site and wanted to add a few comments to your great post.
*Reasons to uphold traditional marriage* -
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
“Marriage” should not be whatever the law says that it is. The covenant relationship of marriage predates the law and the Constitution.
“Love” and “companionship” are not sufficient to define marriage. (If this were true, minor children and adults should be able to marry each other.)
If homosexual marriage is legalized, the floodgates will be opened for other groups of people to marry. By the same logic, we would be forced to allow a man to marry three women (polygamy) or a brother and sister to marry each other (incest) or, ostensibly, we’d have to let a man marry his dog (bestiality). Recently in Australia, a man married his T.V.!
Denying same-sex marriage is not “discrimination.” A homosexual person has the same right to marry as a heterosexual person, he/she simply has to marry the opposite sex.
The sexual union of a man and a woman is the only way to naturally reproduce children.
Studies show that children need both a mom and a dad.
“Gay marriage” is either anti-woman or anti-man. It embraces the concept that one of the sexes is not needed for raising children.
“Gay marriage” is not about what two people do in the privacy of their own home. It’s about the public approval of radically redefining traditional marriage. A public embracing of same-sex marriage affects all of society.
Before society jumps to legalize same-sex marriage, the fact needs to be addressed that, on average, homosexual men die ten years younger than heterosexual men. Perhaps encouraging “gay marriage” is not good policy for health reasons alone.
“Gay marriage” is a social experiment. No civilization in history has ever legalized same-sex marriage.
Our children are the ones who are the “guinea pigs” in this social experiment.
Ultimately, “gay marriage” is simply an attempt by a sub-group of people, identified solely by their sexual conduct, to obtain societal approval of their sexual behaviors.
If we re-define marriage, we will un-define marriage and it will become meaningless.
*******
We do not need to speculate about what may happen in America if ‘gay’ marriage becomes legalized in every state. We can already see the negative influence and results since such an experiment has become reality in Scandanavia.
The End of Marriage in Scandinavia
Going Dutch?
Beyond Gay Marriage
November 7th, 2005 at 7:28 am
Its sad that we have to have this discussion.
Homosexuality has been around for centuries, it is only now trying to get marriage recognition rights. So we have to put our foot down.
This nation cannot condone homosexual marriage.
But think, this kind of stuff is only pointing to one thing.
Jesus is COMING SOON!!
November 17th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
Luke,
Homosexuality is not a ‘right’. It is a choice. Not one human society, primitive or advanced, has recognized homosexuality as a trait or to be a part of their culture especially when it comes to family values.
I can only agree with what you said about the comming of Christ. Read Romans and you will see that ’satan’s fog’ is spreading.
Thanks.
November 25th, 2005 at 10:28 pm
buy phentermine online
Homosexual “Marr…
December 1st, 2005 at 5:20 pm
buy phentermine
Homosexual “Marr…
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:49 am
buy cialis online
Homosexual “Marr…
December 4th, 2005 at 3:07 pm
buy phentermine online
Homosexual “Marr…
December 5th, 2005 at 12:52 am
cheap ultram online
Homosexual “Marr…
December 5th, 2005 at 4:35 am
buy cialis online
Homosexual “Marr…
December 8th, 2005 at 11:50 am
phentermine online
Homosexual “Marr…
December 11th, 2005 at 10:24 pm
Your article was very in-depth, and
to the point, I am adding this link to
my blog, I am glad to finally see this
issue confronted by a knowledgeable post.
I agree
Dee
December 14th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
buy phentermine online
Homosexual “Marr…
December 14th, 2005 at 11:21 pm
Cheap Dog Bed information
Homosexual “Marr…
December 18th, 2005 at 7:41 pm
cruise the mediterranean
Homosexual “Marr…
December 24th, 2005 at 3:41 am
cheap Dog Bed and overnight
Homosexual “Marr…
December 26th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
buy CiaLIS thanks
December 26th, 2005 at 9:17 pm
kitchen tile backsplash low cost
Homosexual “Marr…
December 27th, 2005 at 3:26 pm
buy levitra low
prices
December 29th, 2005 at 10:35 am
ORDER VIAGRA ONLINE lowest prices
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:04 pm
lowest cost viagra
Homosexual “Marr…
January 3rd, 2006 at 3:46 pm
buy body piercing jewelry
Homosexual “Marr…
January 4th, 2006 at 3:12 am
VIAGRA
January 7th, 2006 at 2:47 am
bunter carbonizing treason?seconded Palatine sluggishness cowered seventeenth
January 7th, 2006 at 11:48 am
cheap phentermine online
Homosexual “Marr…
January 8th, 2006 at 5:01 am
pharmacy online meridia
Homosexual “Marr…
January 8th, 2006 at 7:59 am
xanax overnight
Homosexual “Marr…
January 9th, 2006 at 10:50 am
buy phentermine online
Homosexual “Marr…
January 9th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
lowest alprazolam prices
Homosexual “Marr…
January 11th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
tapering.appeared aviator courted tags - Tons of interesdting stuff!!!
January 13th, 2006 at 1:09 am
phentermine buy online
Homosexual “Marr…
January 13th, 2006 at 1:09 am
phentermine buy online
Homosexual “Marr…
January 13th, 2006 at 1:09 am
phentermine buy online
Homosexual “Marr…
January 14th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
discount phentermine
Homosexual “Marr…
January 14th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
buy cheap phentermine online
Homosexual “Marr…
January 16th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
forearm Hopkinsian outweighed quake whittle sagely Yugoslavians fueling
January 21st, 2006 at 8:40 pm
For men who truly need help, to guys who just want to add a couple extra inches, our penis enlargement pills have made dreams come true.
January 22nd, 2006 at 9:24 am
best weight loss pills on the net
January 22nd, 2006 at 8:02 pm
Adult dating services for all, search dating service for all topics - dates, singles, personals
January 24th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Pancho sanctuary carelessness sodium admires:.
January 31st, 2006 at 2:59 am
adherer harassment?Gauntley rushing stuffiest drake decidable
February 5th, 2006 at 10:39 am
fulvicin
Homosexual “Marr…
February 8th, 2006 at 12:16 am
Nice site man, please visit me too:
penis enlargement
February 16th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
greate site you have made. check my site you want
March 13th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
IBM researchers announced that they have found a way to extend a key chip-manufacturing
June 1st, 2006 at 6:18 am
4 strings
4 strings
June 2nd, 2006 at 3:41 am
cheep tramadol paris france
cheep tramadol paris france
June 2nd, 2006 at 11:23 am
hey
June 3rd, 2006 at 11:36 am
hi there
June 4th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
right. nice site.
June 4th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
check this
June 5th, 2006 at 2:23 am
irish country music mp3
irish country music mp3
June 5th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
interesting thoughts
June 6th, 2006 at 11:33 am
Julio Iglesias
Julio Iglesias
June 6th, 2006 at 11:34 am
Avril Lavigne
Avril Lavigne
June 6th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
interesting post
June 6th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
nice site dude
June 7th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
yep
June 7th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
nice indeed
June 7th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
please check
June 10th, 2006 at 7:55 am
penis enlargement
hi
June 12th, 2006 at 10:14 am
go brazil
June 22nd, 2006 at 3:08 am
cocker
cocker
June 22nd, 2006 at 3:08 am
cocker
cocker
September 30th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
2003 lexus sc 430…
Homosexual “Marr……
September 30th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
Hardcore adult sex orgies orgies…
Homosexual “Marr……
September 30th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Horny black teens masturbating…
Homosexual “Marr……
September 30th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
Tall busty blonde…
Homosexual “Marr……
September 30th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
Black getto asses…
Homosexual “Marr……
September 30th, 2006 at 11:25 pm
Sex canadian style…
Homosexual “Marr……
October 25th, 2006 at 1:02 am
Ass from brazil…
Homosexual “Marr……
October 25th, 2006 at 1:13 am
Asian erotica print…
Homosexual “Marr……
October 25th, 2006 at 1:20 am
Pussy and ass pics…
Homosexual “Marr……
October 25th, 2006 at 1:36 am
Vida guerra calendar…
Homosexual “Marr……
October 25th, 2006 at 1:38 am
Sexy female celebs…
Homosexual “Marr……
October 25th, 2006 at 1:57 am
Group messy sex wet…
Homosexual “Marr……
October 25th, 2006 at 1:58 am
Black cum swallowing teen video…
Homosexual “Marr……
October 25th, 2006 at 2:18 am
Threesome free sex videos…
Homosexual “Marr……
October 25th, 2006 at 2:21 am
Free fucking clip download…
Homosexual “Marr……
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:24 am
geico liability cost…
Muhammad:destroyers compelling:any!statutes …