Bryan Fischer at RenewAmerica had a good column yesterday on why homosexual "marriage" is bad for any children who may end up caught up in it.
Here is an excerpt:
As Hansen puts it, "Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father."
Children need the complementary balance of the kind of love both a mother and a father provide, the nurture and compassion of a mother combined with a father's love which calls a child to achievement in order to fulfill his God-given potential. Plus, children learn how to relate to both sexes later in life by relating to both a mom and a dad and observing the way in which they relate to each other.
Further, for a boy to become a man, he must at some point detach from his mother and identify with his father, who shows him what mature masculinity looks like and teaches him how to channel and control his aggressiveness and his sexual impulses. A father's strength and presence command a kind of respect a boy needs to learn self-restraint. It's no secret that boys without fathers are much more likely to become delinquent and wind up afoul of the law.
This is only part of a good column; I'd recommend reading the rest.
I also wrote a rather lengthy piece on the subject in May, shortly after the California Supreme Court declared a right to homosexual "marriage." It was in response to some skeptical comments to my initial post about that decision, and it deals primarily with why the institution of marriage is so important to child development, and why society as a compelling interest in preventing monkeying around with that foundational institution. It was called "Society and the State Have a Compelling Interest in Preserving Marriage."
Dawn Stefanowicz is one child (now a woman) who was subjected to the chaos and emotional stress of growing up in a homosexual home. Her story is heartbreaking, even though she's recovering from that now.
Children are being subjected to too much chaos and disregard for their development and well-being by selfish heterosexual people; how callous we would be to throw children from the frying pan into the fire by putting them in a home where they not only face the promiscuity and health risks common to many homosexuals, but are sent the message that one or the other sex is unwanted or unneeded.
Our selfishness and child-sacrifice at the altar of sexual indulgence needs to stop.
12 comments:
Mr. Ellis,
As much as I would like to let this little article go, it pains me too much to do so. So let's set a few things straight.
First, Dawn Stefanowicz's story is a sad one. She joins the thousands of sad stories of children abused or neglected by hetero and homosexual couples alike. But your argument that homosexuality automatically leads to harming of a child is a faulty one. In fact the Child Welfare League of America, North American Council on Adoptable Children, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, and the National Association of Social Workers all disagree with you.
Second, we should dispell the rumor that same-sex marriage leads to the downfall of society. It does not. As I'm sure you are aware, Massachussetts was the first state to recognize gay marriage. It also happens to be the state with the lowest divorce rate in the country. Now let's look at some of the states that outlawed gay marriage: Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, and Texas. This group contains 4 out of the 5 states with the HIGHEST divorce rates in the country. In fact, divorce rates for these states went up 1.75% since banning gay marriage. Now, I'm not saying banning gay marriage automattically leads to higher divorce rates, but it certainly doesn't lower them. Not convinced? Of course you're not. Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway all allow same-sex marriages. And divorce rates have not gone up in a single one. Saying that gay marriage leads to the downfall of society is fear mongering, nothing more.
Lastly, your language of 'promiscuity and health risks' common to homosexuals is disgusting. I'm sure your just as aware as I am that AIDS cases (which I assume you are referencing) are more common amoung us heterosexuals than homosexuals. But lets not let a little thing like facts get in the way when we have gay-bashing to do.
Respectfully,
Braden
Mr. Hoefer,
Please consider a few critical considerations that you "overlooked:"
The opinions of the medical associations you named don't count for much since their decision to embrace homosexuality as normal, natural and healthy were based on politics, not science and certainly not child welfare. Homosexual activist protested, lobbied and pushed the medical community in the early 1970s to legitimize their sexual practices, and while the majority of the community gave in to pressure and did so, the decision was far from unanimous--and remains so.
Have you considered that divorce rates might be lower because people aren't getting married at all in the same numbers? That maybe they figure if marriage can mean anything it means nothing?
Regardless of marriage or divorce rates, my original points still stands quite well: heterosexuals are doing enough damage to our children; we don't need to add to the suffering by placing children in homes where one sex is missing (which robs the child of one sex model and the opportunity to learn from interaction of the sexes), a home where the longevity of the "parental" relationship is in high doubt (most homosexual relationships last less than 10 years, with a large number evenless than 5 years), and monogamy statistically insignificant (only 2.7% of homosexuals report having only one partner, with the most common number of partners between 100-500). Homosexual couple also experience much greater domestic violence than heterosexual couples, in addition to the drastically increased health risks (AIDS/HIV, multiple other STDs, anal cancer, hepatitis, depression, substance abuse and suicide risk).
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) also doesn't back up your claim about heterosexual AIDS cases. The latest CDC figures show of all adults and adolescents, only 33% come from high-risk heterosexual contact. The CDC defines this as heterosexual contact with a person who is (1) HIV infected, (2) a male who engages in male-to-male sex, (3) a person who injects drugs, (4) has hemophilia or coagulation disorder, or (5) is a transplant or transfusion recipient--and I'm sure prostitution would fall into this area as well, being a "crossroads" activity for a number of these factors. So you see that even in the heterosexual category, most of the infection comes from bisexual contact and other immoral behaviors.
Meanwhile 53% of all adult and adolescent AIDS cases involve male homosexual contact (this from a group that a recent HRC survey shows comprises only 2.9% of the population). Among men, the figure for homosexual contact rises to 72%.
But don't let something as petty as facts and child welfare get in the way of feel-good political correctness.
Hey Bob, would you mind posting links to your sources?
Hey Killan, I think most of them are already in the post. If they're not, I'm sure you can find related source material elsewhere at Dakota Voice.
"Have you considered that divorce rates might be lower because people aren't getting married at all in the same numbers? That maybe they figure if marriage can mean anything it means nothing?"
Now this wishful thinking, or do you have statistics to back you up? Would you mind posting a link showing marriage rates in Massachusetts prior to and after the ruling to allow same-sex marriage? Thanks.
Anonymous, since you seem to know so much about divorce rates in the various states, why don't you enlighten us by posting your sources and references first. Or did you just pull your statements out of the air?
Um, actually I didn't make a single assertion either way about divorce rates. You have claimed something about marriage rates in Massachusetts, and I'm just asking you to bear the burden of proof and substantiate it. Thanks again in advance.
Are you not the "Anonymous" above who made assertions about the divorce rates in Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, and Texas?
Be honest now, and if so, please provide your sources.
No, Bob. The "Anonymous" you're referring to isn't anonymous, because he used a name (Braden Hoefert), and if he used a name, why would he suddenly post under Anonymous? Look at the writing styles and tone, too. I'm not the same person. Stop stalling.
The "Braden Hoefert" comment was made under the tag "Anonymous." Anyone can write any name in at the end of their comment...or no name at all. So when people go under "Anonymous" and won't link their name to their comments, it can be difficult to determine who is saying what, and who may be posting multiple times under multiple aliases. There's been a rash of questionable commenting behavior lately.
And "Braden Hoefert" aka Anonymous' comments did not contain any sources our links. I proffered a theory based on his unsourced assertions, because frankly the implied correlation makes no sense whatsoever. Before I waste any time providing further information (that you'll probably casually disregard in seconds anyway), let's see Hoefert's references.
More to the point (and as I said, "Regardless of marriage or divorce rates..."), I asserted that homosexual "marriage" would be harmful to children. Do you dispute that contention? If so, please provide facts, sources and links.
The very first post on this thread starts with "Braden Heofert said...," not "Anonymous said...," so the person in question did not post anonymously the first time. I did post anonymously, and did not use a name even after my post, so you'll just have to take my word that I am not Braden. That's sort of the risk you take if you want to allow people to comment anonymously.
I'll try to bring this conversation to a less bitter tone. You told Braden to consider that maybe Massachusetts's lower divorce rate can be explained by the "fact" that people aren't getting married at all in the same numbers, figuring that if marriage can mean anything, what's the sense in marrying.
This is where I stepped in and asked you to provide sources to back up your theory, which you have still refused to do. Even if Braden never replies with a single citation, that does not exempt you from supporting your own claim. If it's just an unsubstantiated hunch, that's fine, but do us a favor and say so, and we won't expect you to show sources. Welcome to an adult conversation.
I thought my language was pretty clear that it was a theory, not a claim.
But if you want me to further defend or substantiate that theory in light of the statements offered by Braden Hoefert, then I'll expect the same sort of sourcing and documentation for those statements that you seem to expect of me before proceeding. After all, why should I waste my time responding to something that might have just been made up? Especially when they do nothing to address the primary point of the post?
I made claims in the original post that haven't in any way been refuted, but you and some others seem intent on chasing rabbits to get away from the truth that homosexual homes would be devastating to children.
Maybe I SHOULD disallow anonymous comments, since so few people are forthright enough to identify themselves in connection with their statements.
Post a Comment