Category Archives: Gay Marriage

Gay Marriage, Top Ten Posts of 2012

Are Children Worse Off When Raised in Same-Sex Homes? #9 Post of 2012

37 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Traditional marriage advocates have often argued that children are better off when they are raised by their married biological mother and biological father.  The data is overwhelmingly in favor of married parents as opposed to single parents.

Those who support gay marriage almost always counter this data by saying that single parent homes may be worse for children, but homes where there are two loving gay parents are just as good for kids as homes where  a traditional married couple raises children.  They point to studies that purport to show no difference between the two different kinds of households.

Traditional marriage proponents have always countered by saying that the studies referred to by the gay marriage side are methodologically flawed, mostly because the sample sizes are too small and the gay couples taking part in the research almost always volunteer to be part of that research.

Where do we go from here?  Who is right?  Are same-sex households equivalent to opposite-sex households when it comes to outcomes for children?  New answers seem to be emerging that do not look good for same sex couples.

On June 10, the Washington Times reported on two new studies that were released which undermine the gay marriage argument that children are no worse off when raised by same sex couples.  Here are some excerpts from the article:

Two studies released Sunday may act like brakes on popular social-science assertions that gay parents are the same as — or maybe better than — married mother-father parents.

“The empirical claim that no notable differences exist must go,” University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus said in his study in Social Science Research.

Using a “gold standard” data set of nearly 3,000 randomly selected American young adults, Mr. Regnerus looked at their lives on 40 measures of social, emotional and relationship outcomes.

He found that, when compared with adults raised in married, mother-father families, adults raised by lesbian mothers had negative outcomes in 24 of 40 categories, while adults raised by gay fathers had negative outcomes in 19 categories.

Findings like these contradict claims that there are no differences between gay parenting and heterosexual, married parents, said Mr. Regnerus, who helped develop the New Family Structures Study at the University of Texas.

Instead, “[C]hildren appear most apt to succeed well as adults when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day,” he wrote.

Mr. Regnerus’ study of 2,988 people ages 18 to 39 — including 175 adults raised by lesbian mothers and 73 adults raised by gay fathers — marks the first research from the new data set, which initially included some 15,000 people.

Here are a sample of some of the 24 negative outcomes for children raised in a home where their mother had lesbian relationships:

  • Family received welfare growing up: 17% of children with married parents, 69% of children with lesbian mothers
  • Recently or currently in therapy: 8% of children with married parents, 19% of children with lesbian mothers
  • Had an affair while married or cohabiting: 13% of children with married parents, 40% of children with lesbian mothers
  • Was ever forced to have sex unwillfully: 8% of children with married parents, 31% of children with lesbian mothers

The article goes on to report on second study released:

The second study, also in Social Science Research, takes a critical look at the basis of an oft-cited American Psychological Association report on gay parenting.

The APA brief says, “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.”

After looking at the 59 studies that undergird this assertion, however, “The jury is still out,” said Loren Marks, an associate professor at the School of Human Ecology at Louisiana State University. “The lack of high-quality data leaves the most significant questions [about gay parenting] unaddressed and unanswered.”

Problems with the APA-cited studies were their small size; dependence on wealthy, white, well-educated lesbian mothers; and failure to examine common outcomes for children, such as their education, employment and risks for poverty, criminality, early childbearing, substance abuse and suicide. Instead, the APA studies often looked at children’s gender-role behaviors, emotional functioning and sexual identities.

The results of these studies, especially that of Regnerus, are extremely important.  Finally we have larger sample sizes, coupled with a random data set.  The results are certainly very troubling for same-sex marriage advocates.  Their claims that same-sex households are equivalent to heterosexual households cannot be sustained without ignoring these new major studies.  Certainly more research is needed, but at least we are starting to see data collected with proper methodology.

Note: If you would like to see a Q and A with Mark Regnerus, click on this link.

Gay Marriage, Marriage

Why Should You Vote “For” the NC Marriage Protection Amendment?

38 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Tomorrow is a big day in North Carolina because we are casting votes on whether a marriage protection amendment should be added to the state constitution, something that a large number of other states have already done.  I have written on marriage and gay marriage in the past, and you can go read those posts if you’d like (some of the links are found at the bottom of this post under “related posts”). 

But what I want to do today is quote an email I received from my friend, Mark.  It was written by pastor John Held, and I think captures many of the important points in this debate.  Please take a couple of minutes to read it below, and don’t forget to vote “for” the amendment tomorrow, if you are a citizen of North Carolina.

Responding to the Opposition to the Marriage Protection Amendment

In their opposition of the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA), anti-amendment activists (strongly supported by national homosexual advocacy groups) are intentionally using the terms “anti-gay,” “discriminatory,” “bigotry,” and “harmful” to describe the Marriage Protection Amendment. This is part of a well thought-through, strategic tool designed to engender an emotional response from uninformed North Carolinians.
 
As outlined in their book After The Ball, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, both gay activists, explain:

In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector…[this will] lay the groundwork for the process of conversion by helping straights identify with gays and sympathize with their underdog status.

Homosexual activists have made no secret of the fact that the redefinition of marriage is number one on their social agenda. The popular accusations being made against the Marriage Protection Amendment fall into this “victim imagery” strategy.

Nothing about the Marriage Protection Amendment is anti-homosexual, and it does not represent an attack on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender (LGBT) individuals.

The Marriage Protection Amendment states, “that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.”  It is a pro-marriage amendment with the sole intention of preserving and promoting the
historic definition of marriage as a public institution that binds men and women together to create the best environment for raising children. The amendment elevates current North Carolina law to the level of a constitutional amendment to protect the definition of
marriage from being redefined by either activist judges or politicians. 

It has been claimed that the Marriage Protection Amendment “writes discrimination into the state constitution…” Understandably, the term “discrimination” immediately creates in people’s minds the image of other people being unfairly excluded from something that is available to everyone else.  Of course, it is true that marriage, by definition, is an exclusive institution – in the sense that it is not open to everyone who wants to get married.  For example, children cannot get married, an adult cannot marry a child under a certain age, certain blood relatives cannot get married (a mother to her son, father to his daughter, brother to his sister), a man cannot marry two women, and a man cannot marry a woman who is married to someone else.
 
When the law defines marriage as between one man and one woman it does not prohibit any homosexual person from marrying, they would just have to marry in the same way that everyone else in society has to marry – they would have to marry someone of the opposite sex. This right is extended equally to all unmarried adults in the society.
 
When homosexuals claim that they want to marry another person of the same sex, they are not simply claiming the right to marry that is available to everyone else in society.  They are claiming a new right that has not previously been available to anyone in this society.  Such a right has been denied to everyone in the society, prior to this time; so, it is not discriminating against them to say that this kind of right is denied to them.

By way of analogy, if a man claimed that he wanted to marry his sister (or any of the examples given above), he is really claiming the right to redefine marriage according to his own desires and preferences.  He is not just claiming a private right for himself, but is
claiming a right to change the definition of marriage that has been adopted by the whole society.  And the law is correct when it denies him the right to do this.  Therefore, restricting marriage to one man and woman does not violate anyone’s fundamental rights. In fact, what the marriage protection amendment actually does is preserve the unique and special understanding of marriage that has existed in nearly every civilization since the beginning of time from the ongoing attempts to strip marriage of its core meaning and purpose.

Christians should also recognize that the end result of the redefinition of marriage is the silencing of the Church on the biblical understanding of sex, gender, and the family.  Granted, for individual churches and denominations that have either rejected the authority of Scripture or re-interpreted Scripture (abandoning grammatical-historical hermeneutical principles), so that the Bible’s clear teaching is muddled, this is not an issue – they have already capitulated to the current culture.  Yet, in places where same-sex marriage has been legalized, religious freedom and free-speech (of individuals and churches that hold to traditional marriage) are under attack in the name of promoting the full acceptance of homosexuality.  The Marriage Protection Amendment would help protect the ability of the church to continue to proclaim what Scripture teaches about sex, gender, and marriage, including what the Bible says about homosexual activity (and adultery and fornication and pornography and all other forms of soul-destroying sin).
 
The accusation that the Marriage Protection Amendment will harm children is unfounded.  Even the liberal British philosopher Bertrand Russell said, “But for children, there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex…It is of children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society.”  No fact has been more convincingly established by social science literature then the fact that children are best served when reared in a home with a married mother and father. Just because other broken family forms exist (from single mothers to same-sex partners) does not mean that the marital norm for society should be redefined in order to keep the children in these families from feeling different.  In a post-Genesis 3 world, not every family will reflect the marital ideal of one man and one woman provides for individuals and society at large.

The Marriage Protection Amendment is really about one thing: preserving the historic understanding of sexuality, gender, and the family in North Carolina and protecting the rights of parents (and the church) to transmit traditional values about these core issues to the next generation.

Gay Marriage, Top Ten Posts of 2010

Top Ten Myths about Homosexuality – #2 Post of 2010

154 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

I have written previously on why the state should not endorse gay marriage. I received numerous comments on that post and if you bother to read through all of them, you will find that they quickly move toward the question of whether the gay lifestyle is good for those in it and whether those in it should be raising children.

As a continuation of that discussion, I want to point my readers to a pamphlet written by the Family Research Council called “The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality.” The pamphlet is well written and seems to be well researched, with copious citations of scientific papers.

Below are the ten myths which are expanded upon in the article.

Myth No. 1: People are born gay.

Fact: The research does not show that anyone is “born gay,” and suggests instead that homosexuality results from a complex mix of developmental factors.

Myth No. 2: Sexual orientation can never change.

Fact: Thousands of men and women have testified to experiencing a change in their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Research confirms that such change does occur—sometimes spontaneously, and sometimes as a result of therapeutic interventions.

Myth No. 3: Efforts to change someone’s sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual are harmful and unethical.

Fact: There is no scientific evidence that change efforts create greater harm than the homosexual lifestyle itself. The real ethical violation is when clients are denied the opportunity to set their own goals for therapy.

Myth No. 4: Ten percent of the population is gay.

Fact: Less than three percent of American adults identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual.

Myth No. 5: Homosexuals do not experience a higher level of psychological disorders than heterosexuals.

Fact: Homosexuals experience considerably higher levels of mental illness and substance abuse than heterosexuals. A detailed review of the research has shown that “no other group of comparable size in society experiences such intense and widespread pathology.”

Myth No. 6: Homosexual conduct is not harmful to one’s physical health.

Fact: Both because of high-risk behavior patterns, such as sexual promiscuity, and because of the harm to the body from specific sexual acts, homosexuals are at greater risk than heterosexuals for sexually transmitted diseases and other forms of illness and injury.

Myth No. 7: Children raised by homosexuals are no different from children raised by heterosexuals, nor do they suffer harm.

Fact: An overwhelming body of social science research shows that children do best when raised by their own biological mother and father who are committed to one another in a lifelong marriage. Research specifically on children of homosexuals has major methodological problems, but does show specific differences.

Myth No. 8: Homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals.

Fact: Sexual abuse of boys by adult men is many times more common than consensual sex between adult men, and most of those engaging in such molestation identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual.

Myth No. 9: Homosexuals are seriously disadvantaged by discrimination.

Fact: Research shows that homosexuals actually have significantly higher levels of educational attainment than the general public, while the findings on homosexual incomes are, at worst, mixed.

Myth No. 10: Homosexual relationships are just the same as heterosexual ones, except for the gender of the partners.

Fact: Homosexuals are less likely to enter into a committed relationship, less likely to be sexually faithful to a partner, even if they have one, and are less likely to remain committed for a lifetime, than are heterosexuals. They also experience higher rates of domestic violence than heterosexual married couples.

I ask you to go read the entire article to get the details behind these claims; they are backed up by research citations. The bottom line is this: science shows that the gay lifestyle is generally destructive of those in it and we should not, as a society, be promoting it.

Does this mean that every gay person experiences the problems cited in the research? Obviously not. We’re dealing with statistics and probabilities, so there are absolutely gay people who are exceptions to the research findings. However, the gay marriage movement is asking for a state endorsement of their lifestyle, and the only way we can approach this issue is to look statistically at those who practice the lifestyle.

 

Abortion, Gay Marriage, Marriage, Morality, Religion

Have You Signed the Manhattan Declaration Yet?

17 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Almost one year ago, I wrote a short blog post asking our readers to sign a document called the Manhattan Declaration.  Why am I back again asking you to sign?  Because we need more of you to participate.

So far, the declaration has gathered 476,000 signatures – impressive, but not enough.  We should easily be able to get over 1 million signatures on this document – after all, if you are a Christian, or a person who believes in the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, and the sanctity of religious liberty, then you should have no problem signing this document.

What does the declaration say about these issues?  Well, you can read it for yourself in full, or you can read a few excerpts from it below.

First of all, why these three principles instead of a myriad other possibilities?

Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense. In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image.

To repeat, these are foundational issues.  Without life, without traditional marriage, and without religious liberty, our civilization crumbles.

About life, the declaration has this to say:

A truly prophetic Christian witness will insistently call on those who have been entrusted with temporal power to fulfill the first responsibility of government: to protect the weak and vulnerable against violent attack, and to do so with no favoritism, partiality, or discrimination. The Bible enjoins us to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to speak for those who cannot themselves speak. And so we defend and speak for the unborn, the disabled, and the dependent. What the Bible and the light of reason make clear, we must make clear. We must be willing to defend, even at risk and cost to ourselves and our institutions, the lives of our brothers and sisters at every stage of development and in every condition.

About marriage, the declaration has this to say:

And so it is out of love (not “animus”) and prudent concern for the common good (not “prejudice”), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture. How could we, as Christians, do otherwise? The Bible teaches us that marriage is a central part of God’s creation covenant. Indeed, the union of husband and wife mirrors the bond between Christ and his church. And so just as Christ was willing, out of love, to give Himself up for the church in a complete sacrifice, we are willing, lovingly, to make whatever sacrifices are required of us for the sake of the inestimable treasure that is marriage.

About religious liberty, the declaration has this to say:

The struggle for religious liberty across the centuries has been long and arduous, but it is not a novel idea or recent development. The nature of religious liberty is grounded in the character of God Himself, the God who is most fully known in the life and work of Jesus Christ. Determined to follow Jesus faithfully in life and death, the early Christians appealed to the manner in which the Incarnation had taken place: “Did God send Christ, as some suppose, as a tyrant brandishing fear and terror? Not so, but in gentleness and meekness…, for compulsion is no attribute of God” (Epistle to Diognetus 7.3-4). Thus the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the example of Christ Himself and in the very dignity of the human person created in the image of God—a dignity, as our founders proclaimed, inherent in every human, and knowable by all in the exercise of right reason.

Will you join us in signing this declaration?  Will you make your voice heard on these issues?  Please make your way to the Manhattan Declaration website and become a signatory to this important document.

Abortion, Gay Marriage, Morality, Religion

Manhattan Declaration

1 Comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Recently, a group of 152 Christian leaders from Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism came together to sign a declaration that states in clear terms Christian support for the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and religious freedom – all of which are under attack in the United States and around the world.

None of these positions are new, but what is remarkable is that such a large and variegated group should gather together in support of the positions.

Check out the declaration and sign it.  Let your voice be heard on these issues.

Gay Marriage, Marriage

Why Should the State Endorse Gay Marriage?

47 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

I wrote a post recently about why the state endorses and promotes marriage between a man and a woman.  Simply put, the state needs children and it needs children raised in the ideal environment for them to become productive adult citizens, which is a family headed by a man and a woman.  Biology, common sense, and vast empirical research prove this to be the case.  Additionally, traditional marriage domesticates men and protects mothers.

Based on these societal interests, why would the state want to endorse gay marriage?

Gay marriages do not produce children.  In fact, the only way a same sex couple can “produce” children is to use people from outside their marriage.  They cannot procreate by themselves and they rely on traditional male-female sexual unions to provide children.

Gay marriages are not the ideal environment to raise children.  Every single gay marriage deprives a child of either a father or a mother.  Again, nature, common sense, and empirical research all demonstrate that children thrive best when they are raised in a family with a father and mother.

Gay marriage does nothing to domesticate men.  The great majority of gay men are not monogamous; they seek sexual gratification outside their primary relationship.  One study tracked 100 gay male couples, and after 5 years not one couple could boast that both partners had remained sexually faithful.  The idea of two men gay men living faithfully in a long-term commitment is a myth.  The research proves just the opposite.

Only gay marriages between women provide any sort of security or protection for a mother.  The quality of that security is debatable, but it seems like it could provide better security than single motherhood.

So, to summarize, at least 3 out of the 4 primary reasons that the state promotes traditional marriage do not apply to gay marriages.  It is only if marriage is completely redefined and its purpose fundamentally altered that same sex marriage advocates have any kind of argument.

You may think same sex marriage is harmless to our society (I disagree but that is a topic for another day), but I want to know why the state should endorse it.  After all, that is what gay marriage advocates want – a state endorsement of their relationship.  There are plenty of relationships that are harmless that the state does not promote.  What is so special about this one?

Make an argument for why we should radically alter our marriage laws.  Show us why, if you are a gay marriage proponent, this is so good for our entire nation.

Addendum: For additional information on whether homosexuality is inherited, please see this post, and for additional arguments against gay marriage, please see this post.

Gay Marriage, Marriage

Why Do Civilizations Care about Marriage?

5 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

The ultimate reason that virtually every civilization since the dawn of man has recognized and promoted marriage between a man and a woman is because this is the one natural union that produces children.  Yes, marriage is about procreation and every civilization needs to produce children to survive and thrive.  Without children, which are produced between the sexual union of a man and woman, every nation, state, and civilization dies.  It is, therefore, supremely important to protect and promote the institution of marriage.

But there are also other reasons.  In addition to procreation, marriage between a man and woman is the best environment to raise children.  It always has been and it always will be.  Biology cannot be overruled.  Children must be raised and families with a married mother and father are the best means by which they are raised, so it is in the state’s interest to promote marriage as the best way for children to be looked after and guided toward productive adulthood.

In addition, marriage civilizes men.  Married men are more productive and well-behaved members of a society.  Single men tend to cause far more trouble for a society, so marriage is a great vehicle for the domestication of men.

Marriage protects women.  Mothers who are married are far less likely to experience violence of any kind than single mothers.  They are also protected financially if they raise their children and forgo a career outside the home if they are married to a committed husband.

These are some of the reasons why human societies have always recognized marriage between a man and a woman and why they have promoted and celebrated this institution.  These reasons are not only backed by traditional wisdom and common sense, but by empirical research.

Like it or not, healthy marriages between men and women are the bedrock of any society, so think carefully about tampering with the definition and purpose of marriage.  Think carefully about weakening this institution in any way.  If you do, you will severely degrade our national immune system.

Gay Marriage, Marriage

What is the Problem with Gay Marriage?

18 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Well, there are many, but Wintery Knight points us to an excellent article written by Robert George that explains some of the issues quite well.  George rightly asserts that we must, as a society, agree on what marriage is before we start re-defining it.  And, it is up to the people of the United States to make this determination, not the courts.

What is marriage?  Is it merely a piece of paper?  Is it two people who have strong feelings toward each other?  Is it two or more people who want to live together, for whatever reason?  Is it all about sexual pleasure?  What is it?

Just as the key issue with abortion is defining what human life is, the key issue with gay marriage is defining what marriage is, including its purpose.  Until we debate this definition, efforts to recast marriage in the courts are getting ahead of the American people and we will end up with an even more divided nation.