The Case against Same-Sex Marriage

In California, homosexual activists have pulled out all the stops to try to get the looney-tunes Supreme Court to remove a proposed constitutional amendment from the November ballot that would undo its recent ruling legalizing gay marriage.

These homosexuals contend that the initiative, if enacted, “would eviscerate the principle of equal citizenship for gay and lesbian people and strip the courts of their authority to enforce basic constitutional guarantees.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

There is nothing in the state’s constitutional that guarantees that any two people have a right to marry each other. Four justices on California’s high court pulled it out of thin air. Impeachment proceedings against these jurists, who overstepped their bounds, usurped the citizenry and assumed the role of lawmakers should have begun immediately. Instead the good citizens of the Golden State decided to go around these jurists by using the initiative process. Should the majority of this court vote to take this measure off the ballot, the people of California will have no choice but to resort to the former action in order to preserve traditional marriage in the state.

The law that has governed traditional marriage is in no way discriminatory. A marriage applicant does not have to declare his or her sexual preference in order to apply for a marriage license and there is no test for a gay gene as one doesn’t exist. Homosexuals always have been free to marry. Many have been married in the past and likely will enter into heterosexual marriages in the future. They simply were not free to marry a person of the same gender.

Marriage is governed by laws. Laws are made by the people and their representatives. Peter Sprigg, the director of Marriage and Family Studies at Family Research Council, points out in “Questions and Answers: What’s Wrong with Letting Same-Sex couples Marry?” (http://www.frc.org/whats-wrong-with-letting-same-sex-couples-marry)  that the right to marry “rests with individuals, not with couples.” All individuals are free to marry but we cannot marry whomever we choose. I cannot marry my daughter or any other minor or another woman. I cannot marry my father or my cat or a group of men. That may well be my sexual preference or “orientation,” as it is often called, but that is against the law in most places.

There are sound public policy reasons that have nothing to do with religion for a state to protect and encourage (reward) traditional marriage. These must be articulated if traditional marriage is to be preserved in California and elsewhere.

• Children who are raised by their married mother and father become more productive citizens. They do better in school, are less likely to bear children out of wedlock, do drugs, abuse alcohol or be a burden on society.
• Heterosexual married adults do better than single adults. They have better physical and emotional health, longer lives, are less likely to be victims of any type of violent crime, have more household income and are less likely to be a burden on society.

The same arguments cannot be made for homosexual unions which tend to be revolving doors. A study from the Netherlands – the first country to legalize same sex marriage –found the average length of these parings was 2 1/4 years. Furthermore, most homosexuals in these unions do not remain monogamous, nor does that appear to be the goal. The Dutch study, found that homosexual men in these relationships had an average of eight “casual” sex partners per year.

Why do homosexuals want the right to marry? Marriage is society’s ultimate stamp of approval on a sexual relationship. Homosexuals want that approval. However, there are no corresponding public policy benefits for encouraging and rewarding the practice of homosexuality.

• Homosexual men and women experience higher rates of disease. In fact, researchers around the world have reported that homosexuals in “committed” relationships are more likely to engage in risky, unsanitary sexual practices than “single” gays.

• Homosexuals are more likely to abuse alcohol, become dependent on drugs and nicotine, suffer depression and attempt suicide.

• Homosexuals have higher rates of domestic violence.

• Children raised by lesbians are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior. They are more sexually adventurous and less chaste.

• Homosexual males are much more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual males.

Bottom line: The hedge of protection that the state has put around traditional marriage is good public policy. There are no compelling public policy reasons for allowing homosexual couples inside the hedge to erode those benefits.

Furthermore, there are no replicated scientific studies to support the myth that homosexuality is genetic and this “practice” is an immutable characteristic like race and gender.

41 thoughts on “The Case against Same-Sex Marriage

  1. I can’t believe how stupid and nasty this article is. Of course homosexuals can marry as long as it is someone of the opposite sex but why would they want to given their sexual preference? It would not be fair to marry someone of the opposite sex one did not love and was not attracted to. Can you imagine if the opposite was true and heterosexual marriage was outlawed and homosexual marriage the only option. Would you happily marry? Show a little empathy or are you completely incapable of it. the statements of fact are not supported. Of course people in relationships are more likely to engage in sex with a potential risk of HIV transmission both heterosexual and homosexual. I believe that if society supports and values homosexual relationships they are more likely to be monogomous and to have lower rates of STIs and HIV. With such vitriol, prejudice and discrimination shown to homosexuals is it any wonder there are higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse and depression. I do not believe there is proof for any of the other statements.

    Like

  2. This response, “if society supports and values homosexual relationships they are more likely to bo monogomous….” reminds me of my daughter coming to me and saying, “If you will let me …. I will be your friend.” How silly can they get?

    Like

  3. Dear Ms. Chastain,

    “No compelling public policy reasons”, says it all. Civil marriage is a public policy. It was decided sometime back to give extra protections and tax breaks to married persons and the family. To grant marriage previleges to everyone is to grant them to none. I thought the U.S. had the right to grant special previleges to certain groups. They do it in many other instances. It seems that allowing the courts to set public policy is the problem. Our elected legislators and executives are weak to allow the courts to usurp their realms of power.

    sincerly,
    Van Cochran

    Like

  4. Jane:

    Given your response to David and your referral to Exodus, there should be little wonder why gay and lesbian folks think that you and your supporters will only be happy when we do not exist.

    We will not give you that pleasure.

    Like

  5. Jane,

    I have to say I do not agree with your perspective on this issue. But I think we can both agree that anger and insults get nothing accomplished, and that instead we could have a cool-tempered discussion about your article above, taking it by the numbers.

    Let’s start with the judges.

    It has been said that one of the largest milestones this century in ending widespread discrimination against African Americans came with Brown v. Board of Education. In that case, it had been argued that the concept of ‘separate but equal’ was simply a form of discrimination with an official seal. The decision reached there allowed for the integration of schools, and arguably paved the way for all the integration laws that followed. It should be noted that before this there had been very little challenge to such discrimination, at least from a majority of people.

    Taking that into account, can it not then be argued that sometimes the majority can be discriminatory towards the minorities, and that sometimes judges must step up to restore the balance?

    Like

  6. Sean,

    The Supreme Court rightfully struck down laws that discriminate based on religion, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment and race, which is an immutable characteristic. Scientists have been trying to fine a gay gene for quite some time or anything that would prove that homosexuality has a genetic cause.

    For more on the recent “brain” study go to http://www.frcblog.com/2008/06/inside_the_brain_of_homosexual.html

    In May 2000, the American Psychiatric Association issued a fact sheet, Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues, that included this statement: “Currently, there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.”

    Dr. Jeffrey Satinover summed up the current situation in his book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth: “We see later the falsity of activists’ repeated assertions that homosexuality is immutable. They seek to create the impression that science has settled these questions, but it most certainly has not. Instead, the changes that have occurred in both public and professional opinion have resulted from politics, pressure and public relations.”

    Columbia University Professor of Psychiatry, Dr. Robert Spitzer, who fought to remove homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association’s list of mental disorders, wrote a study published in the October 2003 Archives of Sexual Behavior in which he admitted (even though he remains a gay rights activist) that, yes, people can change their “sexual orientation” from homosexual to heterosexual through reparative therapy and counseling.

    Like

  7. I agree with you wholeheartedly, Jane, and just why judges and others can’t grasp the basic facts totally escapes me except to consider supernatural evil influence. Although I agree with and am fully aware of all the Biblical arguments against encouraged perversion I feel the basic discussion is obvious in one natural fact. This below is as concise as I have been able state the very basis of the argument to where most people should be able to grasp the concept that differentiating between natural and un-natural is not discrimination. Yet every time I hear the retort, “Yeah, but in our culture….”. Logic has no value in influencing the chemically or mentally challenged.

    From a practical standpoint polygamy, and even incest, has many fold more justification than does homosexuality. Therefore the only naturally human thing to do is recognize the naturalness of marriage between a closely unrelated man and woman. Any other unnatural binding made lawful has to include every other relationship possibility, or in fact discrimination does then exist. To differentiate between natural and unnatural is not discrimination, but to differentiate between various forms of unnaturalness is discrimination based on ones own perceptions, not nature or its Creator.

    What sets heterosexual marriage apart from others naturally? Two things. The first is the ability to procreate. Only people of the opposite sex can come together and conceive a child. Secondly, two people of the opposite sex can rear children with a natural balance between male and female rearing and training. Some will point to the numerous failures in this regard, but it should be noted they are largely a result of societal failures, not the concept of a man and a wife as parents.

    Like

  8. Healthier? Happier? Better for children?

    Have yet to read about a baby placed in a trash can, dropped off at a hospital or police station that wasn’t from a heterosexual couple.

    Our children are wanted, planned and know they are loved.

    If the ability to procreate is requisite to marriage, get a plumber or doctor to conduct the ceremony.

    Like

  9. Leslie,

    All babies — your baby if you have one — are a result of the union of a male sperm and a female egg. In other words, all babies come from a heterosexual couple, whether or not they were married or could be described as
    “a couple.”

    Like

  10. There is no better defense of marriage than the fact that God made it and defines it and sets boundaries, moral laws, to defend it. No Christians should not be ashamed of this defense! We shall deservedly lose our liberty if we refuse to elevate God’s word over fallen human reason. Retreating to arguments based on human reason is an open invitation to others to assert and promote their contrary opinions. In the cultural battle, why do we put down the weapon of God’s choice–His Word, which has the power of the Holy Spirit to change whole cultures, in favor of our own flimsy arguments–plastic spoons in comparison, with no power to change hearts?

    Like

  11. How clueless and misinformed. Why not bring up the high divorce rates straight couples bring to the sanctity of marriage; or, single moms and teenage births for straight children; or, forget it. You have not presented any compelling argument into why gays cannot marry. Just more bias and bigotry and hate; the weapons of choice for the fundies against equality.

    Like

  12. Jane,

    I do agree that the question of how sexual orientation relates to biology is far from completely settled, but recent studies do suggest that it is a strong factor. Researchers in Sweden recently released the results of a study indicating the brains of gay and lesbian individuals are wired differently than their heterosexual counterparts. To list a few examples:

    – The brains of heterosexual men and homosexual women were similar in that the volumes of their two brain hemispheres were not symmetrical; The brains of homosexual men and heterosexual women were similar in that the volumes of their two brain hemispheres were symmetrical.

    – There were also opposite sex similarities between the gay and heterosexual participants in the way their amygdalae connected. For example, in homosexual men and heterosexual women, there were more connections from the left amygdala.; But in homosexual women and heterosexual men, there were more connections from the right amygdala.

    The researchers apparently went on to suggest such changes could not come about simply through learning, and were instead based in the biological. An expert unrelated to the study elaborated further in saying he believed such changes came about early in the development of the fetus.

    Like

  13. Despite the judges “pulling the ruling out of thin air” it is still how they ruled. As of May 15, the california constitution guarantees the right for gays and lesbians to marry. That is a simple fact, whether you like it or not.

    The Alliance Defense fund wrote the ballot initiative without regard to that fact. They claimed in their petition that the marriage amendment would not change the way that California regulates marriage.

    However, as you obviously know, California grants same sex couples marriage licenses. A constitutional amendment clear- very, very clearly- changes that. Not allowing gays and lesbians to marry would drastically change the way California regulates marriage.

    And because of this, the proposition to ban same sex marriage on the california ballot was written unconstitutionally.

    The ruling may have been activism, but it is still the law of the land. Much more than simply a ballot inititive is require to change that law. That is why the California Supreme court will likely remove the ballot measure.

    Like

  14. Regarding Dr. Spitzer and his study, he later said, “…the kinds of changes my subjects reported are highly unlikely to be available to the vast majority [of gays and lesbians]… “[only] a small minority — perhaps 3% — might have a “malleable” sexual orientation.”

    Most Psychiatric and Psycological Associations and professional organizations support the view that sexual orientation generally cannot be changed. Similarly, most gay and lesbian people when surveyed support this view as well.

    Like

  15. Juan says that no compelling arguments against gay marriage have been presented when in fact no compelling arguments have been put forth for it, except to say it is something they want to do and so should not be prevented from doing so. That is not a justification or absolutely nothing could be prohibited.

    Read it again, Juan, “To differentiate between natural and unnatural is not discrimination, but to differentiate between various forms of unnaturalness is discrimination based on ones own perceptions, not nature or its Creator.”

    Is the so-called love of two people of the same sex anymore sincere and valid than say that between one man and several women or even one woman and several men? Siblings should love one another, but how do we determine when their love has gone beyond sibling love and has become sexual love equal to that of any homsosexual love and their marriage could then be permitted. Plain and simple homosexuality is abnormal, not at all normal, and so does not deserve preference over all other abnormal behavior.

    Wendy, you are absolutely right in your support of God’s word and the power of the Holy Spirit. However, to deny the validity of secular arguments against homosexuality only provides them grounds to declare that only believers of the Bible (read “radical right”) are against their desires when in fact there is no valid support for their desires to be fulfilled secularly or Spiritually.

    Leslie, I knew a woman one time that did infact abandon her newly born baby in the woods. The body was found, she was jailed and had a sexual relationship with a deputy while in jail. Sin knows no bounds and too often we Christians tend to emphasize one sin over another. God does classify sins for emphasis calling them abominations, but homosexuality is not the only abomination. Murder, which includes taking the life of an unborn or newly born baby, is such an abominal sin to God that it is listed specifically in the 10 Commandments.

    But, the sins of one person or one class or even one nation does not justify the sins of anyone else. There no doubt are many people condeming homosexuality while they themselves are engaged in sinning against God in some other manner, un-married cohabitation, adultery, drunkeness, abuse -even spiritual abuse, not helping others when they have the means and opportunity, even gluttony. Sin is sin, un-natural conduct is un-natural conduct and none should be accepted or encouraged by society.
    The sin of hypocrisey does not justify other sins or immorality.

    Another important factor, Leslie, is that when regarding the failures of natural relationships one has to consider the role of society in those failures. No humans are perfect, but the acts of society can exacerbate the failures. For example we denounce the concept of gay marriage as demeaning heterosexual marriage while at the same time encouraging “No fault” Divorce which has wrecked havoc on the sanctity of marriage. Humans exercising individualism and self control are usually happy humans, but when self control is abandoned with the encouragement of pornography, gambling, violent games and entertainment and on and on those are the things that tend ruin society, not natural individualism. I encourage everyone to read Kupelion’s “The Marketing Of Evil” to help understand that there are many attacks on natural society, not just the so-called homosexual agenda.

    Like

  16. You state all of these negative things about being gay, with these shown studies, studies that are not documented whatsoever. Let’s say these ‘studies’ are true. However, none of these statements are true about me. I do not abuse children, alcohol, drugs, and I have no diseases. Why shouldn’t I be rewarded?

    And this is just a comment:
    Picture the year 1790. I’m a white, land-owning male. You? You’re my wife. You have no rights. You have no control over my financial status or my land. You’re stuck in the home, raising the kids or pretty much being subordinate to my power. You can’t vote, either. Women should and ought to have no say in politics. Now, picture the year 2008: You and I are applying for the same job. Being a male, I’m obviously qualified more than you. Sure, you find the same position elsewhere, but you’re making roughly 20% less than me.

    Now although I am no way proud of this past and current day policy, I absolutely disagree with it. However, if some definitions were not changed, you, Ms. Chastain, would have no say in politics. We have expanded the definition of a voter from “white, landowning male” to “anyone over the age of 18.” With this social progression, it is a positive step forward where changing definitions allow for a more equal say in society and politics.

    For we had never changed definitions, your say wouldn’t matter. I am proud of this change and ashamed to say that not all women had the rights that you enjoy today. Now you as a woman go attack a sexual minority? That’s just wrong.

    Like

  17. Oh Jane, I am so surprised that most responses to your article are from those who disagree. The only ones agreeing are Ron, who thinks incest and polygamy might be ok, and Wendy, who is so divorced from reality it’s kinda scary. I was going to bring up your obvious anger evidenced in the article, but so many others already have – it truly eclipses your message.
    So – Im trying to figure out why you are so angry. Is it because your picture above the article is right next to the girl with the big huhas advertising thoseshirts.com. Next to her you look a bit – shopworn?
    Or could it be that all you have to brag about in the education area is an honorary doctorate from Pacific International University?
    On a kinder note, I did see reading your bio that you made some strides for women in earlier decades. Congrats on that. How did it feel when you saw that women were given opportunities denied to them in the past? That’s how we gays feel now. I am hopeful that folks can vote on the amendment in the Fall, because I believe it will fail. With the legislature, courts, and governor opposing it, and now unions and city governments joining in, I am very optimistic about the outcome. Have a great day!

    Like

  18. Grant, you can not say Wendy is removed from reality for stating the true word of God. Just because we Christians fall back on, and have complete faith in, the word of our Creator and Savior, does not make us removed from reality. The Bible clearly states that man shall not lay down with man, nor woman with woman, nor father with daughter, nor mother with son… though it seems you do not know the Word, I think you should get the drift. It is against all things Holy and right to allow people to marry same-sex partners. It has been since the dawn of time. It is unnatural to give in to the lure of the forbidden (gay sex), and can not bring anything but shame and sorrow in the end. Our state lawmakers are desperate to keep their seats/positions, and have thus helped along something that should never have even been considered.

    Like

  19. The notion that homosexuality is natural and should be awarded the same privileges as heterosexual unions is nothing less than a commentary of our American culture. And like it or not, culture is inescapably religious. Therefore, the answer to this problem must first and foremost be religious. While I somewhat applaud your efforts to point out the social ills of homosexual marriage, your comment,”… there are sound public policy reasons that have nothing to do with religion for a state to protect and encourage (reward) traditional marriage. These must be articulated if traditional marriage is to be preserved in California and elsewhere” is sadly misguided. The push for homosexual marriage is a religious statement, a product of our anti-Christian culture. To combat the problem of homosexual marriage with pragmatic solutions will only serve to drive our nation further from a real solution–that is, one which addresses the religious nature of the argument. What we have here, Ms. Chastain, is a group of people who hate God’s standard of morality and desire to destroy everything in our country that confronts them with their sin. To add to this, we also see those who want to solve this problem in a fashion that leaves religion totally out of it. Bluntly, homosexual marriage a sin problem, not a alcoholic-abusive-disease ridden “issue.” And the only thing that will solve this problem is a solution that reaches to the very religious core of homosexuals and ambivalent heterosexuals alike–repentance from sin and faith in Jesus Christ.

    Like

  20. When all else fails resort to distortion or personal attacks. Isn’t that your guide Grant?

    My point is obvious that I am not in favor of legislating encouragement of any unnatural relationship. Any relationship between people of the opposite sex, regardless of how abhorent, has more credibility as a natural claim for acceptance than same sex relationships. Therefore legalized same sex relationships cannot be made acceptable because doing so establishes the basis for legalizing virtually all other unnatural relationships.

    Feelings and emotions are very strong human influences. But, neither extreme love nor extreme hate are justification for consumation of the resultant desires.

    As for your comments about Jane your personal attack tends to destroy any credibility you might otherwise have. If you don’t have cogent points to present or at least passionate personsl pleas it is better to leave the debate to those that do, regardless of their position on the issues.

    Pretending some relationship between the homosexual agenda and such things as racial discrimination and womens rights is nothing but a smoke screen to cover the facts that homosexuality is an unnatural choice and is in no way comparable to ones racial heritage or inherited genes. Choices can be changed and in the matter of choosing homosexuality it should be. For what it is worth, Grant, I would no more support legislation to force homosexuals to undergo psychological conversion than legislation to legalize their relationships. Both are wrong.

    Like

  21. Jane,

    “In other words, all babies come from a heterosexual couple…”

    Sperm and egg are not sexual beings, Jane. Gay men donate sperm all the time, Jane. Babies have gay dads.

    Embryologist have triggered cellular reproduction from in a single egg and by combining genetic material from two eggs. No sperm necessary.

    External anatomy does not make a male/female couple “heterosexual” anymore than a marriage license does. Just look at the recent political and evangelical couples in the news.

    You’re mixed up about biology, sexuality, psychology and martial relations – both straight and gay.

    The heart and head are the major sex organs, Jane. Get your mind about the belt.

    Like

  22. One of the unique features of our nation is our Constitution, and the idea that citizens have rights which are not subject to removal at the whim of the majority. This “tyranny of the majority”, the idea that 51% f the population could use its majority power to vote away the rights and freedoms of the other 49% was very much on the minds of the Founding Fathers when they conceived our Constitution, and the government it describes.

    At the time of its founding, a black man was not considered a full citizen, and a wife was considered to be, in effect, the property of her husband. Neither black people nor women could vote or own property.

    Times change. As a nation, we encompassed a grander vision of freedom and equality, one which did not limit itself based on skin color or gender.

    Today, we are debating a similar expansion of that spirit of equality: the extension of the institution of marriage to same-sex couples.

    Some object to this based on religious grounds… but our nation’s government is a secular one, one intended to represent everyone, of all beliefs or none, equally, with no special consideration given to one religion or another. As such, a simply “My God says it is wrong” is insufficient basis upon which to demand legislation.

    Others claim that same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they cannot concieve their own children… but this assertion does not withstand even casual scrutiny. We do not deny marriage to heterosexual couples because they cannot or will not have children. Likewise, there are many same-sex couples who are raising children today, children from previous marriage, adoption, or, in the case of lesbian couples, children borne of one member of the couple itself. Surely, if our goal is to provide a stable environment for children, same-sex marriage would only help that cause, by providing same-sex couples with the same benefits that mixed-sex couples enjoy, benefits which make it easier to successfully raise children.

    Still others claim that the legal recognition of same-sex couples will somehow harm the institution of marriage. I ask, “How?” My own marriage does not suffer because couples in Massachusetts or (now) California can marry. Indeed, if their objections were legitimate, I’d like to see them speaking out against celebrity “stunt marriages”, or drunken couples getting married by Elvis impersonators in drive-through chapels. Instead, I see same-sex couples who stood in long lines, and traveled long distances just on the faint hope that they could marry. Harm the instituion? I assert that such commitment can only strengthen it.

    No, the objections I hear to same-sex marriage ring hollow, and, more often than not, betray a vulgar bigotry and prejudice against homosexuals, one as base and as unbecoming a nation like ours as the racism our nation institutionally supported for generations, racism which is now, at last, seen as being unacceptable by most citizens.

    I urge my fellow citizens to follow the better angels of their natures, and not use the Constitution, a document intended to protect rights, as a weapon to deny rights. This is not the way Americans should be treating their fellow citizens, and is an affront to the spirit this nation was founded upon.

    As for the statistics claiming to speak against same-sex marriage, I gently remind everyone that you have access to the entire world wide web at your fingertips. Don’t take one organization’s or one person’s word for it… go out and find the data for yourself.

    For example:

    “What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples” – http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,003.htm

    “Facts show that same-sex couples are fine parents” – http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/1024153.html

    Dear Reader, when someone is trying to make you angry or afraid, stop for a moment, and make sure they aren’t just trying to get you to stop thinking. Demagogues can’t succeed if they can’t get you to give up your reason.

    Thank you for your time…

    Like

  23. In re: Case against same-sex marriage, I have but one thing to say, Jane:

    KUDOS. WELL DONE.

    I always enjoy reading a well-researched article such as yours about any subject, particularly those that affect this nations moral foundations.

    Keep up the good work, and thank you for all your works.

    God bless America, land that I love.

    Rich. Hunter
    (from VT, land of fruits and nuts, and same-sex anything, which keeps me busy opposing all of it.)

    Like

  24. If gays are really as miserable as Jane claims, the natural and human reaction might be to help them and to feel compassion. Yet, after inventing facts and producing a twisting and irrational argument, she proceeds to attack the very people who, per her article, could probably use a little help.

    I’m starting to think that the state of mind that leads people to hate gays is a sickness of the soul. Their arguments stems from a sick soul – it’s the only explanation for how people like Jane can possibly believe what they’re writing.

    Like

  25. The Dutch study I cited that found that the average length of “steady partnerships” among homosexual couples was 2 1/4 years, and that homosexual men in “steady partnerships” had an average of eight “casual” sex partners per year was published in the journal AIDS in 2003(Maria Xiridou et al., 17:1029-1038).

    The myth that the preponderance of studies done on children raised by homosexual parents show no differences is false. Also, most of these studies are done with lesbians. The studies frequently cited by gay groups have serious flaws and do not hold up due to serious methodological problems. However, pro-homosexuals sociologists Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz did a survey of the available data that was published in the American Sociological Review in 2001. These results were cited in my column.

    On of the most balanced studies, in terms of methodology, was done by Dr. Sotirious Sarantakos and published in Children Australia in 1961. He compared 58 children who were being raised by homosexual couples with children being raised by 58 married and 58 cohabiting parents. No real surprises. It found that the children raised by heterosexual married couples did best. The children of homosexuals couples came out worst in almost every category category.

    Also consider this: Most child sexual abuse is committed by men. Less that three percent of American men identify themselves as homosexual but about a third of all cases of child sexual abuse is that of men molesting boys. This does not mean that most homosexual men are child molesters but it is a risk factor and should not be ignored. See “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse,” Insight No. 247 (Family Research Council), May 17, 2002, http://www,frc,irg.get,cfm?i=ISO1B1

    Even with the best of homosexual parents there will be problems according to Princeton psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover. “In every area of life, ” he explains, “cognitive, emotional, social developmental…social evidence shows that there are measurable effects when children lack either a mother or a father.”

    Like

  26. Mr. Hunter, I suggest you follow the links I provided. You may find reason to question the material you have read.

    Besides, why do you so vigorously object to people who love others who just happen to be of the same gender? Why does that bother you so? Please help me understand the source of your distress.

    Like

  27. Ms. Chastain, I offered a link which contradicts your interpretation of “the Dutch study.”

    Your reference to child abuse implies that there is a link between pedophilia and homosexuality, a common misconception. You can learn more about this here: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html

    To be sure, there is controversy with regards to how well children do when it comes to being raised by same-sex couples (which, btw, is very different from speaking of children being raised “without a mother or a father”, which implies a single-parent household). However, there is by no means an academic consensus that same-sex households are any worse an environment for child-rearing than mixed-sex households.

    Of course, this is all tangential… we don’t deny marriage to mixed-sex couples who can’t or won’t raise children, or who are less than exemplary parents, so one can hardly deny the institution of marriage to same-sex couples on that basis.

    Like

  28. Jane,

    Dr Sotirios Sarantakos, is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Charles Sturt University, New South Wales, Australia. In 1996 (not 1961 as you state) he published a research paper on primary school children in three contexts. married heterosexual couples, cohabiting heterosexual couples and homosexual partners. He studied 174 children – 58 in each family type. The “homosexual” families comprised 11 homosexual (male) couples and 47 lesbian couples.

    Sarantakos, S, “Children in three contexts” in Children Australia, 1996, Vol 21, No 3.

    He only studied children of homosexual partners who were born in a previous heterosexual relationship. There were no children the homosexual couples jointly adopted or had by surrogacy.

    The study was made and supported after the John Howard government in Australia was quoted about their unsubstantiated statements on the “best environment for raising children.” When questioned the government look for, funded and support this study and author.

    Some of his finding that I find interesting and you should too:

    “More children of homosexual partners were reported to be timid and reserved, unwilling to work in a team or talk about family life and holidays.”

    I wonder why?

    “There was a small minority of “extreme cases” where the children were ridiculed by other children for some personal habits or beliefs or for the sexual preference of their parents.”

    “With homosexual partners, the relationships between parents and school were even weaker – they rarely attended parent teacher meetings or offered volunteer work of any kind.”

    These gay couples in Australia were asking for the right to marry at that time and were met with hostility and indifference.

    “He is at pains to point out that teachers who assessed the children may have been influenced by cultural beliefs and attitudes.”

    HIS PRIMARY FINDING: “However he does note that parental separation and divorce, long known to be associated with academic failure in children, is likely to be a major factor in the lower scores of children in both cohabiting and homosexual partner families.”

    Cohabitation, divorce and separation are very detrimental to children no matter who their parents are or what kind of relationship the parents have to their children.

    Jane, do not place on emerging gay couples who can now marry and adopt or have children by surrogacy, all the detriment and family failures of traditional marriage, divorce, separation, and cohabitation from the past.

    There are a number of studies underway looking at the actual experiences of gay couples who plan, want and raise their own children by choice. Their children will not come from a default divorce from a prior different-sex marriage. These parents will be genuine and sincere in their relationship to another adult and the children they raise.

    I think many people are afraid of the truth. Our experience with families will be no different from families headed by a different-sex couple. And our experience of marriage without raising families will be no different from different-sex couples who by choice, nature, or age remain childless.

    There are 6.5 billion people on this planet going to 8.5 billion by 2025. California has 38 million going to 50 million in the same period. At less than 10% of the population, gay people and especially couples are most welcomed in this state since we naturally limit population growth and adopt many of the children not wanted by their natural parents.

    Face reality. Face the deterioration of social life stemming from traditional problems in traditional marriage: divorce, separation, cohabitation, lack of child support enforcement, child abuse by stepparent fathers and poverty to name a few.

    Your arguments remind me of George W. Bush and his WMD/Iraq scare. At least people arguing as you have will never be able to take the nation to war, cultural, or otherwise.

    And for that, I thank God.

    Like

  29. Jane,

    Excellent article – you offered good, rational, thought-out points and responses to some of those who commented.

    You seem to have a number of angry even forceful supporters of homosexuality and same-sex unions. I suppose discussion of such issues will draw that kind of attention. There seems to be more arguments and nasty rebuttals based on passion than on logic, solid evidence from scientific studies and the historical record of societies that have allowed unrestrained sexual behavior. And that seems to be a sad reality of the level of thinking and debate that now exists in our culture, frankly of many liberals and conservatives alike – we are in this nation far from the intelligent, knowledgeable, history minded bright folks that founded our good nation.

    There seems to be an enormous debate taking place in our society, primarily because we’ve abandoned standards, ethics and morals that were sorted out by peoples ancient.

    For those who condone or even wish to honor homosexuality, many of us, it appears a majority in American society don’t wish to do the same. Not a few of us know the legacy of homosexuality down through history from its common to cultic and regal forms in many cultures and we don’t wish to see it blessed in American society. http://hometown.aol.com/GraceEACA/chapter2.html We have seen the abandon, the reckless behavior and disrespect displayed in public gay celebrations and parades and wish to distance our families and ourselves as far as possible from such thinking and behavior. Regardless of how much supporters of homosexuality argue the benefits of the behavior and the need for all of us to accept it, most of us will continue to strongly want nothing of it. There seems to remain amongst us a collective memory of what happens to societies that unleash sexual desire. And at our very core we do not appreciate having elite politicians, judges, the media and entertainment industries either attempting slowly to indoctrinate or suddenly force the sexual orientation on our society.

    Homosexuality often seems to go hand-in-hand with other sexual practices, dysfunctional behavior as many of us see it. Down through history into the present, homosexuality appears in societies to have a close relationship with pederasty as sadly evidenced by the scandals that have rocked and are bankrupting the Church. What came first in ancient Greece, homosexuality or pederasty – did one lead to the other or are they both part of a broader acceptance and allowance of unrestrained sexual desire? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty Was such behavior preceded or succeeded by other forms of sexual practices in Greek culture? What were the social and sexual norms in the time of Plato, and the reasons the Greek sage eventually gave in condemning pederasty but was unable to disassociate it from homoeroticism? What defines appropriate sexual behavior that benefits society in general? If a society like ours begins to sweep away our standards of acceptable social behavior what will become of us? Some countries in Europe who have gotten beyond the debate of accepting homosexuality have already led the way in overturning other sexual standards and given us a startling glimpse where such license leads. Sweden has legal and it appears socially accepted clubs for random individual and group sex, Denmark allows human-animal brothels. Ask Americans if this is the direction we wish to start sliding?

    Once sexual standards that have been established on long thought-out deliberations of what works best for societies are ignored or deliberately discarded, what governs what is permissible or not? One’s passions, desires? Who is then to say what is right or wrong when there are no standards except one’s own rationale, desire, convenience and force if necessary. And not only of sexual desire, but conduct and restraint in all other spheres of social contracts. Cultures have decayed and fallen based on such undisciplined, wanton notions: Greece, Rome, Carthage. Is it wrong for thinking people to want to avoid self-destruction and choose to restrain certain behaviors? Many of us Americans don’t see offering gay unions the honor of the institution of marriage as an enlightened advancement of civilization, rather a sobering regression into the errors of the past.

    As much as some people don’t realize or deny the fact, human behavior is a choice. Emotions, inclinations, experience influence behavior, but for thinking people our actions even our thoughts and emotions are disciplined and elevated by choice.

    Society at large, liberals and conservatives alike need to work on improving the foundation of our culture: families and interpersonal relationships, not condoning dysfunctional social behaviors. Relationship skills within marriages and families need to be given renewed support to prevent divorce, infidelity and people’s damaged psyches as they attempt to experience satisfying relationships that in turn benefit society in general.

    Like

  30. Brent:

    It’s more than a bit dishonest of you to mis-characterize every response to the original article as being merely a matter of “passion”, rather than reason and evidence. Plenty of both have been posted, by others and by myself.

    The fact of the matter is, not every fellow human feels romantic / sexual attraction exclusively towards members of the opposite gender. You do no one any good by demonizing these people, or making (IMO fallacious) assertions which imply that “If it’s tradition, it must be right, and if it isn’t, it must be wrong.” Much that was once traditional – slavery, the subjugation of women, etc. – is no longer traditional today, and we are all the better for it. It seems to me that the demonization of and bias against non-heterosexuals is likewise incompatible with today’s views towards justice, fairness, and equality.

    You are free to eschew acting on whichever personal desires you feel are inappropriate. You are not free to impose your demand that other consenting adults not live their lives with those they love, other consenting adults, simply because you personally don’t approve of their choices… nor should you be.

    Yes, by all means, I heartily agree that “Relationship skills within marriages and families need to be given renewed support… “, including support for marriages and families which happen to include same-sex couples, couples which do all of the things that mixed-sex couples do, including raise children.

    Like

  31. Jane, do you personally know any homosexual couples? Are you going to actually go out, make some gay friends, draw an actual conclusion, or base your reasoning on statistics that are 50 years old?

    Above all, these stats do not and will not change reality. In California and Massachusetts, gays will marry. Throughout the United States, gay couples will raise children together.

    The social climate has changed in the past 50 years, dear. Back then, Homosexuality was considered a “mental disorder” by the APA. Of course these ‘studies’ are going to agree with the status quo, it’s people back then hearing what they wanted to hear. Think outside the box.

    Seriously, attend a GSA or a PFLAG meeting and get to know us a little better. We are reasonable people just like everyone else. Please, take me up on this offer.

    Like

  32. Hi Jane!

    As usual, you have hit the nail on the head. I wish some of these people responding would do their own research before sounding off. Personally, I’d like to see those activist judges in the California Supreme Court get an old fashioned Tar & Feathering for their outright arrogance and stupidity. I get sick and tired of the clown school running our state of affairs. Cheers, and I hope you and your husband are doing well!

    From your old CBC colleague,

    Edward (aka MR. E)

    Like

  33. What no one has been able to answer is this simple question:

    How will denying marriage equality prevent heterosexual couples (or, for that matter, homosexual couples) from having/adopting and raising children?

    In fact, all that will be achieved by denying marriage equality (apart from enshrining discrimination in the California Constitution) is that those children who are being raised by same-sex couples will be denied the stability and benefits that come when couples take on the responsibilities of civil marriage.

    Like

  34. Mistereks:

    Read the replies very carefully. The folks who have spoken out against gay marriage have done so, because there is a standard to rearing children: a good mother and father figure. Those parents who are single parents have a bigger challenge to raise their children with both good male and female examples for their children. It is to the advantage of the child to have both a man and woman parental figure in his or her life. Yes, we are all aware that there are a huge number of single parent homes (quite often a single mother, but not always, and she has a son to raise…disadvantage for the son.) Also, there is the single dad family in which the dad has a daughter, and that can be tough on the girl. Also, the single mom with a daughter can be a bad situation too…what is the daughter learning about a relationship between a man and a woman? The same thing can apply to a single dad family with a son…what is the son learning about women?

    Now let’s look at a homosexual couple raising a child: What is that child learning? It’s not something good.

    Now for anyone else reading these responses, please don’t bring up things like domestic violence and the like; those things are also real serious issues in relationships which need to be dealt with, but it only serves as a smokescreen on this topic, and yes we all know these things go on in reality!

    Like

  35. Edward –

    I had already read all the replies. None address my core question.

    Even if one assumes as correct the statement that every child does best with both a mother and father in the home, how does denying marriage equality further the goal of having more two-parent, opposite gender families?

    I’m truly interested in an answer to that question.

    Like

  36. I’m a fifteen year old straight female from Australia and I support homosexuality.

    Firstly I thought I should correct your mistakes,
    “… Children who are raised by their married mother and father become more productive citizens. They do better in school…”
    this is false I have been brought up by my mother my whole life and I am often placed in the smarter half of the class as well as being a member of extension learning classes.

    “…The Dutch study, found that homosexual men in these relationships had an average of eight “casual” sex partners per year…”
    I’m sorry but the Dutch should really reconsider their study, have they bothered to study heterosexual men the out come is probably similar.
    I have known homosexual couples to outlast many many heterosexual marriages.

    Some people argue that homosexual behavior is unnatural as they can not conceive children.. however there are many women it the world that cant do this either. In fact some gay men even help women conceive by donating sperm.

    I personally think you cannot take away somebody’s opportunity to lead a happy life gay men can not posibly be expected to change their romantic feelings, attractions and beliefs just because you don’t understand it I mean how could you you’re not a homosexual.

    There are many things that people are expected to accept in society why cant homosexuals be accepted aswell?

    Like

  37. Hey Everyone Im New, I have been browsing around this message board for about a few days as a guest. I found it useful and it has helped out allot. I hope to hang around for abit and contribute.

    Thanks Allot.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s