The “Slippery Slope” of Homosexual Marriage
Mike from Andover, one of Pundit Review Radio’s most faithful listeners allerts us as to legislation moving through the Mass Legislature which would significantly soften the penalty for betiality in Mass.
The bill would strike down several sections of the current penal code criminalizing adultery, fornication and the advertisement of abortion,” the reported stated. “It also repeals what appears to be a sodomy statute forbidding ‘abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast.’
Is this not the “slippery slope” that those of us who seek to preserve traditional male-female marriage in this state/country told you was coming to a town near you once hetero marriage becomes just another family configuration?
November 18th, 2005 at 10:56 am
Let’s look at what’s being proposed:
Repeal Section 14: Adultery, Section 18: Fornication:, Section 36, Blasphemy:
Sins? yes. So are covetousness, pride, sloth, and greed. Crimes? Ridiculous and unenforceable.
Repeal Sections 20, 21, 21A: Essentially, allowing advertising and materials for things that are all legal. You may or may not like abortion and contraception, but it is constitutionally protected. Laws like these probably would not stand consitutional scrutiny.
Modify section 34: That’s really a stretch to call this a step toward allowing bestiality. The 20-year prison term is still on the table.
(Repeal sect’s 63-69 have to do with dealing with vagrants and “tramps.” I assume you are not speaking to this)
This is merely a long-overdue cleanup of outmoded, unenforced (and unenforceable) laws.
Gay marriage has been around for over a year, and aside from knowing several happily married, productive same-sex couples, (many with some of the most well-adjusted kids I know),my heterosexual marriage has miraculaously remained unthreatened. In addition, these married couples will now be able to enjoy basic rights of loved ones, like hospital visitation, child custody, and extension of benefits tragically denied to earlier couples.
You can object to homosexuality, call it a sin, even pretend there is a “cure,” but to deny the existence of happy same-sex couples (married or not) is to live in an alternate reality.
Fortunately for free enterprise, the right for religious organizations and other private organizations (like the Boy Scouts) to discriminate against homosexuals remains preserved.
The fiction of the gay marriage “slippery slope” is going the way of Rick Santorum’s reelection chances.
November 18th, 2005 at 5:46 pm
Doug H,
You bring some interesting points of view to the table and I thank you for taking time to air your opinions as always.
However, abortion is not a constitutionally protected “right” merely on the basis of Roe. Even Ruth Bader has acknowldeged that it has a very flimsy jurisprudential basis. It is also a steretch to group the right to obtain contraception as decided in Griswald with the so-called right to kill an unborn developing child. And I think that many on the left know Roe is weak constitutional law which explains the fierce opposition to anybody with clear pro-life views and positions who may overturn Roe (which incidentally would only return the issue to the individual states to vote on) There are many very keen legal minds from both sides including pro-abortion liberal Lawrence Tribe of Yale and John Hart Ely who taught law at Stanford, Harvard, and Yale whom I quote in my book. Ely states taht “Roe was a very bad decision because it is bad constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to be.”
In a few of my earlier posts I have also cited example after axample of studies in peer reviewed medical journals that show that homosexual “couples” at best only provide as good a “family” for children as step and single parent homes which is not a very high standard.
To ignore that unilaterally redefining the definition of marriage has no detrimental impacts on society ignores the fact that no enduring society ever had homosexual “marriage” and those that have (Teh Netherlands comes to mind) have had a very bad experience.)
Legalizing same-sex ??marriages would contradict the vast body of evidence that concludes that traditional heterosexual marriage is the best family configuration for the rearing of children. Same-sex partnering would enshrine into law a public judgment that the desire of adults for families of choice outweighs the need of children for mothers and fathers. It would tacitly acknowledge the approval of motherless or fatherless families as a deliberately chosen good. It would signify that the law was neutral as to whether children had mothers or fathers. Motherless and fatherless families would be deemed as socially acceptable. Same sex ??marriage? would deny the reality that marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal family unit that promotes procreation and ensures the benefits of child rearing by the distinct attributes of both the father and the mother
While the direct impact of homosexual marriage on traditional heterosexual marriage may seem benign, there are many unforeseen aggregate effects on society that one must consider. First, when the 5,000 year-old assumption that marriage is the exclusive covenant between one man and one woman is redefined to include same sex couples, traditional marriage is no longer an exclusive arrangement. If marriage is no longer exclusive then homosexual marriage opens the door for other nontraditional marital configurations. If the standard for marriage becomes ??committed loving people? why should this arrangement be limited to two people? What about polygamy, incest, and bigamy? What about a man who ??loved? his dog? Could they marry one another? Sound ridiculous? Well, what would be the rationale for preventing the dog from attaining the same benefits that any ??spouse? would receive? (Which is exactly the “slippery slope” to which I am referring with this legislation)
At first, Bob and Peter??s ??marriage? seems harmless enough. After all, why should Jim and Alice across the street care what ??two consenting adults who love one another? do in the privacy of their own home? Unfortunately, Bob and Peter??s marriage does not exist in a vacume. The very foundation of civilization- predating our own western civilization- has always been traditional marriage and the traditional family. In no other time in the history of the world has any society been able to sustain itself and prosper by condoning the marriage of homosexuals. If allowed to marry, traditional marriage would cease to be an exclusive arrangement. The message that we would be imparting to our children is that the traditional union of one man and one woman and the cornerstone of the family and society is no longer the superior marital configuration. By condoning ??same- sex? marriages we would be acknowledging that the two arrangements are morally equivalent. We would be telling future generations that contrary to 5,000 years of history without any rational proof, that the primal institution of civilization is outmoded. We would be tacitly acknowledging that men and women are essentially equivalent and that one biological woman and one biological man are not necessarily superior than two men or two women or three men, or four woman, in the rearing of children. We would be telling our children that as Hillary Clinton once said ??it only takes a village? to raise a child and that two biological parents are not essential and superior in raising children. (This is what Santorum taks about in his fabulous book-by the way I woulnd’t count him out for re-election-Spector should be worried however.)
While Joe and Mary might not feel the direct effects of Bill and Bob??s ??marriage? they will certainly experience the lasting impact of a radically different society and culture. Joe and Mary??s children will be taught in school that their Christian notion that homosexual behavior is sinful that that type of thinking is ??hate speech and hate thought? and not ??tolerant?(This has already occured throughout the contry including here in Mass). Joe and Mary will have to cede their sacred religious beliefs at the altar of secular humanism that teaches that homosexual behavior is normal and should be encouraged and experimented with. If homosexual marriage is legalized, it is only a matter of time when other non-traditional ??marriage? unions are allowed. Thus, when four men and four women move in next door to Jim and Alice in a ??legal? polyamour ??marriage? and each of the polyamours have children together (with different partners) although their arrangement won??t directly effect the quality of Joe and Mary??s marriage, it could strongly effect the well being of Joe and Mary??s children who now live next door to the polyamours.
What will be the effects on children when they are told that the octet next door is just another type of ??family? and that there are a great many diverse families in our country and that each person must decide what is ??right? for them and that exclusive marriage between one man and one woman is outdated, intolerant, and homophobic?
What about when Mary who is herself a third grade teacher is told by her teacher??s union that she must teach that homosexuality is normal even though her biblical beliefs tell her otherwise?
When homosexual marriage is legalized and given the same moral standing as heterosexual marriage, what will stop television programmers from airing shows on public airwaves that show homosexuals hugging and kissing? What about the ??rights? of the 90% of Americans who claim to be Christian who believe that homosexuality is sinful behavior who don??t want their children being exposed to homosexuality on t.v? Or do the ??rights? of a very small minority of radicals transcend hundreds of millions of citizens in this country to not have the homosexual agenda imposed on them?
The claim that a homosexual??s ??marriage? doesn??t ??hurt? anybody else is based on false logic. One could make the same assertion about other modes of behavior such as pedaphelia, child pornography, bigamy, incest, or sex with animals. One could claim that as long as there is mutual consent that none of these behaviors are unlawful and should enjoy all the same legal protections that traditional marriage enjoys. After all, how does a threesome or person wanting to marry his animal affect the married couple across town the cynic might ask. Anytime that we as a society condone specific modes of behavior we tacitly acknowledge it as acceptable. Just because we may never come into direct contact with a pedaphile doesn??t mean that we must by that measure alone condone such behavior by granting it legal approval. Citizens can oppose and restrict certain legal relationships based upon the perceived morality of that behavior. I need not live next door to a polyamorous couple to oppose the legality of this type of family configuration. Thus, the assertion that a homosexual couple??s marriage does no harm to a heterosexual??s marriage is a false choice based on false assumptions and presuppositions.
At any rate, the voters will decide as should be the case in any representative Republican Democracy such as ours.
BTW, I’m gald to hear that yo concur with the boy scouts stated opposition, not to homosexual scouts themselves, but to scout masters who are homosexuals given a central tenent of the scouts oath is to live a “morraly straight life.” They like millions of American parents beleive that homosexuality is sinful behavior that they don’t want their children exposed to within the Scouts.
Also, I’m not pretending their is a “cure” for homosexual behavior. I am only relating the experince of tens of thousands of men and women who practiced homosexuality who can testify that they found a “cure” for their unnatural and self-sestrcutive lifestyle in Jesus Christ.
Finally you state “in addition, these married couples will now be able to enjoy basic rights of loved ones, like hospital visitation, child custody, and extension of benefits tragically denied to earlier couples.” Like I stated in earlier posts, homosexual couples and even children who care for older parents and loved ones can already access these legal protections. It does not require unilaterally redefining marriage without voter approval. “Reciprocal Beneficiary Legislation currently in the Mass Legislature” will ensure that homosexual couples and others such as children who care for and live with parents are aforded those same prtections and benefits.
November 18th, 2005 at 11:27 pm
Doug H.,
First off, your comparison of adultery, fornication and blasphemy to covetousness, pride, sloth, and greed is weak. Adultery is illegal for purposes in which I will get to in just a minute. As for fornication and blasphemy, well, I do not want to get into a ??religious ping-pong game?? with you because we will just agree to disagree based on your lack of knowledge of biblical scripture as indicated in comments you left on this blog spot in the past.
If covetousness, pride, sloth, and greed were illegal than all of us would be persecuted. See, doesn??t sound funny to compare these to adultery, fornication and blasphemy. Kind of like apples and oranges. I am not sure what you were trying to say.
If you compared adultery, fornication and blasphemy to maybe murder for someone??s desire for something (covetousness??s extreme result), or journalistic slandering of someone (selfish pride for oneself ?? democrats constant regurgitation that Bush ??lied??), and maybe embezzlement of money (greed), and malpractice (sloth attitude of a physician). Work on it and get back to me.
Let??s take adultery. Our culture is a monogamous one. Polygamy is not accepted in our culture. Not only is it not accepted by the people who make up the culture, but it is not accepted by the government that governs the people. Do you see marriages, for example, between more than one set of males and females or males and males or females and females that is accepted by our government? No, you don??t. We do not live in a polygamous society because they do not work for the greater good of that society. Recent research from a major British medical journal (Maria Xiridou et al., ??The Contributions of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection Among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,? AIDS 17 (2003): 1029-38) on male same-sex relationships in the Netherlands-arguably one of the most gay-friendly cultures in the world (and where same-sex marriage is legal)- indicates gay men have a very difficult time living by the values of marriage. This study found that, on average, steady homosexual relationships in the city of Amsterdam last only 1.5 years. The study also found that gay men in steady relationships there have an average of eight partners a year OUTSIDE of their current relationships. 1. How is that healthy for children to see? And remember the attitude of the first couple, Jonathan Yarbrough and Cody Rogahn, in line on May 17th, 2004 to get a same-sex marriage license in Provincetown, MA:
Jonathan Yarbrough, a bisexual, said to the press just before his wedding:
??I think it??s possible to love more than one person and have more than one partner?In our case, we have an open marriage.?
So what if this couple wanted to expand their open marriage to include some of these other people they plan to love? How would we-how could we-say no? What does this in turn do to our economy? Do we pay benefits to everyone who gets a civil union certificate or marriage license who is gay? (or maybe even straight co-workers who jump on the band- wagon to receive benefits at work?). Were do we stop the madness?
Contrast the Netherlands study with the fact that 67% of first marriages in the United States last ten years, and more than three-quarters of heterosexual married couples report being faithful to their wedding vows. ( Matthew Bramlett and William Mosher, ??First Marriage Dissolution, Divorce and Remarriage: United States,? Advance Data, National Center for Health Statistics, May 31, 2001, p. 1; Edward O. Laumann et al., The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, p. 216).
Some same-sex marriage advocates explain that if homosexuals had the social pull of marriage to keep them monogamous like heterosexuals do, then they would be more monogamous like heterosexuals. An article in OUT magazine, a leading voice in the gay community, quotes a 32 year-old gay man on the question of the virtue of marriage and monogamy:
??As far as the legalities and financial aspects, yes, I??d definitely get married. But would that make me monogamous? No way. I think it??s silly for anyone, straight for gay, to define it that way?
No, opening marriage to people who simply want the legal benefits it provides and little else does not strengthen marriage. Nor does it benefit the children who suffer as a result of the many relationships which brings the confusion of ??who are my real parents? There are so many mommies and daddies coming and going in my household.?? This is the same case for the ??no fault divorce?? which was another social experiment our nation decided to ponder upon 30 years ago. Look at what a massive failure that experiment has become and how the evidence of failure is overwhelming: (Marriage in America: A report to the Nation, Council on Families in America. Institute for American Values, 1995, http://www.americanvalues.org/html/r-marriage_in_america.html).
What??s the real problem with group or polygamous marriage you might ask?
If marriage were to have no limits on the number of people it would allow, only relying on the argument that it have individuals who have personal preferences for a particular person, or animals, then the definition of marriage will be whatever that group of people want it to be. Expanding marriage beyond a man and a women to all of those who want to legally acknowledge their public declaration of love will force our government and place of employment to provide health and legal benefits for ANY grouping of people who ??marry? under these new laws. Can your place of employment afford to benefit five or maybe nine people in a group marriage? What will keep two, three, or maybe four heterosexual moms from ??marrying? for a time simply so they can receive family health, tax and social security benefits? This increased cost to businesses and our government would be crippling. I mean, look at our TRILLION-dollar deficit now. How can we go any futher? Marriage itself will be meaningless. Do you, Doug, think your ??heterosexual marriage will remain unthreatened?? at this point? Do you see the slippery slope now?
In regards to your comment of Rick Santorum??s interview with the associated press (AP):
AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?
SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we’re just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it’s my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it’s polygamy, whether it’s adultery, where it’s sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.
Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be
Mr. Santorum??s underling argument here is that the constitution has boundaries. You may be protected under the first amendment to express yourself but you cannot scream ??fire?? in a crowded theater. People will either be hurt or killed in the chaotic attempt to reach the exits. You can have consensual sex in your home but it cannot be between a man or women and a boy or girl, or between a man or woman and an animal. It deteriorates the psychological, emotional, ect well being of the recipient of this act. I am not really talking about the animals here, but you never know. Dog is man??s best friend but come on now. We can now have sex with our pouch and get away with a minimum of a $5,000 dollar fine? Yes there is imprisonment involved but to attempt to minimize the consequences of such a heinous crime is the first step in the gay communities agenda to reconstruct heterosexual marriage.
I will leave you with this comment from Michelangelo Signorile who explains in OUT magazine that,
??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? (Michelangelo Signorile, ??I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do,? OUT, May 1996, pp. 30, 32 (emphasis is original).
I thank you Doug for your comments. Please try and come up with irrefutable facts to back up your arguments because this is an interesting debate (regarding same-sex marriage that is.)
Thanks,
Michael
November 23rd, 2005 at 1:41 pm
Well Doug, where is the response? This is pretty entertaining stuff. Although if it is longer than 10,000 words, please outline your points first.
But honestly, I am constantly amazed at how big an issue this has become. The real issue is that the Mass. supreme court had no right to force this law on the state. The courts do not make law.
I personally have no problem with gay marriage. Though not gay myself, I know several long-lasting gay couples that I would rather be raising a child than some of the whacko straight couples I know. Good people are good people regardless of sexuality, and I find it almost impossible to make sweeping judgements or legislate this topic.
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:30 pm
Optimist– the court’s stand was just the opposite– they said no law was on the books banning it– so the logical (legal) reponse by the gay-hating crowd is to try to enshrine anti-gay bias into law (ok that’s one way of putting it). I would be very interested to see how a vote turns out in Mass.
Gregg and Michael — I can’t address all of your volumes above, for fear of crashing the site with another 10,000 word post.
As far as grouping abortion with birth control, from a legal standpoint that is true– unless at some point Roe is overturned. Again, that’s not a judgement on abortion iteself, but restricting advertising can be challenged as a right to privacy issue vis a vis Roe. Sorry, but Roe is legal precedant until and unless Bush can pack the court with like-minded activist judges bent on overruling. it.
–If you want to ban gay marriage on the basis of “Motherless” or “fatherless” families, then you should outlaw single parenthood as well. Good luck with that. And I’m not going down the survey rabbithole, we have been there before. I’ll use my own 2 eyes to see that there is no way a loving same-sex family is unfit for parenthood over a pair of (for example) drug-addicted serially unemployed straight folks.
Gay marriage is a fact in Massachusetts, and the sky has not fallen, mass bestiality riots have not occurred, and traditional marriage has not been affected one whit. In fact I fail to understand how exactly straight marriage is affected– by legalizing gay marriage we are not pronouncing moral superiors or equivalents, but acknowledging a right to exist.
What “Bob & Peter” say to our children is that we are different, and gosh yes, there are actually homosexual people out there. If you don’t want your children to know that, home-school them and let them live in a vacuum. And many of these Bobs and Peters are loving, monogomous couples who want and deserve visitation, health benefits and property rights– a number of marriage rights are simply not provided for under civil unions (if they were the marriage issue might not be such a big deal).
Last, from a legal standpoint this isn’t about religion– no one is asking churches to sanction same-sex unions. The state, however, is a different entity. I recognize that my marriage was blessed by the Episcopal Church but also by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts– a dual function that any clergyperson can explain to you. Religious arguments can only carry so much water in a goverment that is supposed to act indpendently of religion.
Heck, let me go one more on that– if a person can claim gay marriage is wrong because of their religiously-informed moral convictions, can a person from a church that does bless gay unions (Unitarian for instance), complain that a state banning gay marriage is infringing on their moral beliefs?
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:31 pm
Oh dear my post wasn’t exactly short either– well, I tried
November 23rd, 2005 at 8:25 pm
Doug H.,
Do you have any comments to refute what is being said by either Gregg or I? Remember, ‘factual arguments’ are only allowed, not your opinion.
November 24th, 2005 at 12:35 am
My earlier post seems to be hung up in Administrator limbo– I’ll wait for Kevin to set it free.
With all due respect Michael, I don’t believe you are setting the rules for debate. Opinion matters very much here. Facts, as I outlined in my other post, lie in my own observances, anf again I find married gay couples of my acquaintance– woth or without children– to be loving, committed, and in the case of the children, quite positive. Certainly gay marriages won’t bat 1.000, but if half last then they will be doing as well as the rest of us.
In the meantime, if you want to talk studies about children raised by same-sex couples, don’t leave out the American Academy of Pediatrics:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/12/health/webmd/main938234.shtml (as far as I know, the study was not limited to Amsterdam)
November 28th, 2005 at 11:15 pm
Doug H.,
You once again have not provided me with irrefutable statistically significant peer reviewed clinical data to refute my studies findings or conclusions about same-sex parenting. You have provided me with a study 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.” (Ellen C Perrin, MD, ??Technical Report: Co-parent and Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents,? Pediatrics, Vol 109 no.2, (2002). 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. I on the other hand have a plethora of studies that have statistical significance to the fact that same-sex parenting does not work. Your own observations of people and children you know who live in a same-sex households does not make up the vast majority of those relationships that are ??significantly? destructive to the child??s upbringing. (just a few more comments below my vast amount of studies)
Many of these studies are either presented or represented in David Popenoe, Life Without Father:Compelling Evidence That Fatherhood and Marriage Are Indispensable for the Good of Children (New York: Free Press, 1996); Glenn T. Stanton, \ y Marriage Matters: Reasons to Be ieve in Marriage in Postmodern Society (Colorado Springs: Pinon Press. 1997): Ronald P. Rohner and Robert A. Veneziano, “The Importance of Father Love: HistOry and Contemporary Evidence,” Review of General Psychology 5, no. 4 (2001): 382-405; Kyle D. Pruett, Fatherhood: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child (New York: Free Press. 2000); Da\id Blankenhorn, Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem (New York: Basic Books, 1994); Sara Mclanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994); Ellen Bing, “The Effect of ChildRearing Practices on the Development of Differential Cognitive Abilities,” Child Development 34 (1963): 631-48; Deborah Dawson, “Family Structure and Children’s Health and WellBeing: Data from the 1988 National Health Interview Survey on Child Health,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 53 (1991): 573-84: Scott Coltrane, “Father-Child Relationships and the Status of Women: A Cross-Cultural Study,” American Journal of Sociology 93 (1988): 1088; Michael Gottfredson and T ra\is Hirschi, A General Theory of Crime (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Uni\’ersity Press, 1990), p. 103; Richard Koesmer et al.. “The Family Origins of Empathic Concern: A Twenty-Six Year LongitUdinal StUdy,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58 (1990): 709-17; E. Mavis Hetherington, “Effects of Father Absence on Personality DevelQPment in Adolescent Daughters,” Developmental Psvchology J (1972): 313-26; Invin Garfinkel and Sara Mclanahan, Single Mothers and Their Children: A New American Dilemma (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press, 1986), pp. 30-31; Sara Mclanahan, “Life Without Father: What Happens to Children1″ Center for Research on Child Well-Being Working Paper 01-21 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University, 2001); Paul R. Amato and Fernando Rivera, “Paternal Involvement and Children’s Behavior Problems,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 61 (1999): 375-84; David Ellwood, Poor Support: Poverty in the American Family (New York: Basic Books, 1988), p. 46; Ronald]. Angel and Jacqueline Worobey, “Single Motherhood and Children’s Health,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 29 (1988): 38-52; L Remez, “Children Who Don’t Live with Both Parents Face Behavioral Problems,” Family Planning Perspectives, January-February 1992; Judith Wallerstein et aI., The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark Study (New York: Hyperion, 2000); Nicholas Zill, Donna Morrison and Mary Jo Coiro, “Long-Term Effects of Parental Divorce on Parent-Child Relationships, Adjustment, and Achievement in Young Adulthood,” Journal of Family Psychology 7 (1993): 91-103.
The AAP 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.
1. E. Thompson, S. McLanahan,& R. Curtin, ??Family Structure, Gender , and Parental Socialization,? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54 (1992): 368-278.
2. Nicholas Zill, ??Understanding Why Children in Stepfamilies Have More Learning and Behavioral Problems Than Children in Nuclear Families, In Alan Booth and Judy Dunn, eds., Stepfamilies: Who Benefits? Who Does Not?(Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Eribaum Associates, 1994) p.98.
3. Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, ??Child Abuse and Other Risks of Not Living With Both Parents,? Ethology and Sociobiology,6 (1985): 197-210.
4. Margo Wilson and Marin Daly, ??Risk of Maltreatment of Children Living With Stepparents,? in R Gelles and J. Lancaster, eds., Child Abuse and Neglect: Biosocial Dimensions, (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1987), p.230.
5. Michael Stiffman, et al., ??Houshold Composition and Risk of Fatal Child Maltreatment,? Pediatrics, 109 (2002), 615-621.
6. Glenn T. Stanton, ??Examining the Research Literature on Outcomes from Same- Sex Parenting,? Focusonthefamily.com
When looking at studies Doug H. ask yourself the following questions:
1. Does the study have a control arm?
2. Is the study a part of a peer reviewed medical journal?
3. Did the study meet statistical significance? In other words, can the study be repeated and come up with the same conclusions? The APA study can-not!
4. Is the study a controlled/randomized/double-blinded study to prove its theory?
Think about these things and get back to me with irrefutable statistically significant peer reviewed clinical data.
Thanks and God Bless - Michael