This post was written originally in October in 2008 as a response to the initial Prop 8 balloting and every year is still the most visited site on my blog. The interest in same-sex marriage exists because of the ongoing debate on whether to legalize it or not.
The articles below are loaded with arguments and statistical data that support marriage between a man and a woman and expose the negatives of homosexuality. Also listed below are articles that write about the spiritual, socio-political, and medical consequences of homosexual sex, a topic that political correctness has managed to keep from the airwaves and most media.
As the debate continues and more and more people become convinced that to “love” all people means to accept the aberrant behavior of the homosexual, the need for beneficial information abounds. Real facts regarding the negative effects of same-sex unions and how it affects not only individuals, but communities and even entire cultures becomes sought after, resulting in blogs such as this one whose most popular articles are the result of searches for “negative effects of homosexuality.” This blog post will continue to be updated with new and relevant news.
Read, contemplate, meditate and freely share your thoughts!
Why Marriage Matters by Brad Wilcox (& colleagues) - 30 conclusions from the Social Sciences in why cohabitation instead of divorce is the worse threat to families today. The greatest benefit of children social scientists have gathered have been in households with a married mother and father.
Renowned Neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson on Same-Sex Marriage
Same-Sex Marriage: Not in the Best Interest of Children – by Trayce Hansen, Ph.D who is a licensed psychologist with a clinical and forensic practice. Originally published 2009. (The forward of this article by Dr. Hansen explains that gay activists were successful in getting articles such as hers expunged from the CAMFT (The California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists) journal after a special publication was published that had both opinions – for and against same-sex marriage. Read the forward for detailed info regarding an example of further loss of freedom of speech by those who oppose homosexuality.)
How Christians Have Partnered With Gays to Attack Marriage - by Ronald J. Sider who is the president of Evangelicals for Social Action and professor of theology, holistic ministry and public policy at Palmer Seminary of Eastern University in Wynnewood, Pa.
Love Isn’t Enough: 5 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Harms Children – by Trayce Hansen, Ph.D who is a licensed psychologist with a clinical and forensic practice. Originally published 2009.
Against Same Sex Marriage Video
“Marriage = Biology (Not Bigotry)”
Updated 1/24/2013 - “Not Born this way” – great page filled with facts exposing the myth that people are born in homosexuality. Excerpt:
“Without any reputable evidence, the entertainment culture, uneducated media, and sexual activists have seduced today’s teenagers, in particular, to believe that people are born homosexual.
However, science has found no biological basis for homosexuality, bisexuality, or transsexuality.
Study after study has found the “LGBT” lifestyle to be unhealthy, with the highest rate of sexually-transmitted diseases, and higher cancer rates and earlier deaths.” More on savecalifornia.com campaign for Children and Families
Updated 1/21/2013 – see post on this site: Obama on Gay marriage in Inaugural Speech: the sad state of Christianity in America. President Obama has thrown his support to gay marriage – after swearing on three different bibles. Article meant more for Christians than non-Christians but an important read for anyone interested. Confirms what has been written below that soon gay relationships will be seen as “normal.” The more normalized homosexuality becomes, the more demonized bible believing Christians become.
June 21, 2012 — For Immediate Release
The Harmful Agenda Behind ‘LGBT Pride’ Parades
Perverse parades advocate intolerant laws punishing people who disagree
Sacramento, California — The homosexual-bisexual-transsexual parades occurring in cities in California and around the nation are harmful to both children and adults, says a veteran children and families organization.
“‘LGBT Pride’ means roping children into unhealthy and unnatural homosexual-bisexual-transsexual lifestyles, and eliminating the God-given, constitutional rights of everyone who disagrees,” said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, which promotes moral virtues for the common good. “You can’t support so-called ‘gay rights’ and at the same time support free speech, religious freedom, or freedom of association, because these concocted ‘gay rights’ are trampling people’s true constitutional rights.”
In California, the “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender” agenda is firmly entrenched in state statutes and court rulings. As a result, so-called “LGBT rights” trump other people’s constitutional rights:
1. GONE — Religious freedom, conscience rights: Under threat of a $150,000 penalty, business owners and property owners cannot decline to hire or rent to homosexuals, bisexuals, or transsexuals despite an owner’s religious or moral conscience: Homosexuality and bisexuality — AB 1001 and AB 1670 (1999); cross-dressing and “sex changes” — AB 196 (2003), AB 887 (2011)
2. GONE — Parents’ rights: A raft of “LGBT” laws in K-12 government schools has largely eliminated the requirement of parental permission for teaching children these sexual subjects. See the several “LGBT” laws that override parental consent
3. GONE — Physicians’ rights: You can’t be a doctor in California and for religious/moral reasons, refuse artificial insemination to a lesbian: “Doctors’ faith must yield to gays’ rights, court says”
4. GONE — Right of association: Owners of businesses and clubs are prohibited from exercising their First Amendment right of association regarding homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality: AB 2900 (2004), AB 1400 (2005), Bernardo Heights Country Club (2005)
Freedom of religion and freedom of assembly (association) are enshrined in the United States Constitution and the California Constitution. The fundamental right of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children has been repeatedly affirmed by the United States Supreme Court. Yet “LGBT” statutory laws in California have been allowed to trump constitutional freedom of religion and freedom of association, as well as infringe upon fundamental parental rights. In contrast, homosexual-bisexual-transsexual “rights” are in neither the state constitution nor federal constitution. In addition, these sexual behaviors do not qualify for “civil rights” status, which is categorically limited to characteristics that are immutable — not changeable, as homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality have demonstrated themselves to be.
“In California, religious rights, moral rights, parental rights, business owner rights, property owner rights, physicians’ rights, and the right of association are being trampled by the intolerant ‘LGBT’ agenda,” Thomasson said. “And despite their lust for dominion and their incessant attacks on other persons’ constitutional rights, the homosexual-bisexual-transsexual activists deceive themselves and others by claiming to be ‘victims’ of peaceful people who have a conscience on these sexual behaviors. But who’s trampling whom? American rights or so-called ‘gay rights’ — you can’t have both, because the latter eliminates the former.”
– end –
SaveCalifornia.com is a leading West Coast nonprofit, nonpartisan organization standing strong for moral virtues for the common good. We represent children and families in the areas of marriage and family, parental rights, the sanctity of human life, religious freedom, financial freedom, and back-to-basics education.
(Original posting of 2008)
From the Rock Church Fine Line Rally held October 1, 2008. Pastor Miles and panelist Sean McDowell answer the question posed: “Same Sex Marriage Doesn’t Affect Me. Why should I be against it?”
In this discussion, Sean McDowell uses the phrase “social re-engineering of marriage” as my new favorite phrase which means redefining marriage. Social scientists who’ve studied marriage have written articles regarding the harmful effects of changing marriage to accommodate marriages such as same-sex marriages. After reading several articles which I will list at the end of this post, there are many similar conclusions. These are as follows:
- Will impact education - We have already seen with the David Parker case in Massachusetts how with same-sex marriage being made legal there resulted in the teaching of same-sex marriages as okay to children WITHOUT even the consent of parents. Since it is mainstream and legal, and since marriages are taught to grade-school children, then same-sex marriage is automatically included without any special need to notify parents.
Update (10/21/08): video of Robb and Robin Wirthlin’s Story about the book titled “King and King” brought home by their second grader on marriage between two men. It wasn’t part of their curriculum, but had to be taught without any notice to parents. It’s not a part of sex education so no opt out was needed. This is said to be a lie of many Prop 8 Opponents, but it is quite the truth.
- Marriage identity words changed – Words such as bride and groom, and husband and wife are now altered to accommodate the same-sex marriages. In California, the marriage licenses were changed from bride and groom to ‘party A’ and ‘party B’ but this was recently changed to add ‘bride and groom’ as an option. Other words replacing husband and wife are ‘partner and spouse.’
- Children will be harmed – According to social scientists, “research indicates that children thrive best when raised by both biological married parents, as long as the marriage is not high-conflict.” (Child Trends Research Briefs and Mapping America). So not just any kind of marriage, but a HEALTHY marriage.
- Gay marriage is harmful to society – marriage and families are the foundation for a healthier society. Our society is already experiencing the effects of unhealthy heterosexual marriages and breakups. Introducing gay marriages just adds to the instability that already exists in marriages.
- Tramples on religious freedom – see my post for more info: Gay Unions don’t affect religious freedom? Think again!
Below features an article found on Christianity Today dated 2/1/2004. After the article is a list of other websites and articles on the same topic.
Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that marriage be open to gays and lesbians, it is time to consider the question that pops up more than mushrooms after a spring rain. How would the legalization of gay marriage harm current and future heterosexual marriages?
The answer at first glance is that it wouldn’t, at least not in individual cases in the short run. But what about the longer run for everyone?
It is a superficial kind of individualism that does not recognize the power of emerging social trends that often start with only a few individuals bucking conventional patterns of behavior. Negative social trends start with only a few aberrations. Gradually, however, social sanctions weaken and individual aberrations became a torrent.
Think back to the 1960s, when illegitimacy and cohabitation were relatively rare. At that time many asked how one young woman having a baby out of wedlock or living with an unmarried man could hurt their neighbors. Now we know the negative social effects these two living arrangements have spawned: lower marriage rates, more instability in the marriages that are enacted, more fatherless children, increased rates of domestic violence and poverty, and a vast expansion of welfare state expenses.
But even so, why would a new social trend of gays marrying have negative effects? We believe there are compelling reasons why the institutionalization of gay marriage would be 1) bad for marriage, 2) bad for children, and 3) bad for society.
1. The first casualty of the acceptance of gay marriage would be the very definition of marriage itself. For thousands of years and in every Western society marriage has meant the life-long union of a man and a woman. Such a statement about marriage is what philosophers call an analytic proposition. The concept of marriage necessarily includes the idea of a man and woman committing themselves to each other. Any other arrangement contradicts the basic definition. Advocates of gay marriage recognize this contradiction by proposing “gay unions” instead, but this distinction is, we believe, a strategic one. The ultimate goal for them is the societal acceptance of gay marriage.
Scrambling the definition of marriage will be a shock to our fundamental understanding of human social relations and institutions. One effect will be that sexual fidelity will be detached from the commitment of marriage. The advocates of gay marriage themselves admit as much. “Among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds,” Andrew Sullivan, the most eloquent proponent of gay marriage, wrote in his 1996 book, Virtually Normal. “There is more likely to be a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman. … Something of the gay relationship’s necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.”
The former moderator of the Metropolitan Community Church, a largely homosexual denomination, made the same point. “Monogamy is not a word the gay community uses,” Troy Perry told The Dallas Morning News. “We talk about fidelity. That means you live in a loving, caring, honest relationship with your partner. Because we can’t marry, we have people with widely varying opinions as to what that means. Some would say that committed couples could have multiple sexual partners as long as there’s no deception.”
A recent study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, suggests that the moderator is correct. Researchers found that even among stable homosexual partnerships, men have an average of eight partners per year outside their “monogamous” relationship.
In short, gay marriage will change marriage more than it will change gays.
Further, if we scramble our definition of marriage, it will soon embrace relationships that will involve more than two persons. Prominent advocates hope to use gay marriage as a wedge to abolish governmental support for traditional marriage altogether. Law Professor Martha Ertman of the University of Utah, for example, wants to render the distinction between traditional marriage and “polyamory” (group marriage) “morally neutral.” She argues that greater openness to gay partnerships will help us establish this moral neutrality (Her main article on this topic, in the Winter 2001 Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review, is not available online, but she made a similar case in the Spring/Summer 2001 Duke Journal Of Gender Law & Policy). University of Michigan law professor David Chambers wrote in a widely cited 1996 Michigan Law Review piece that he expects gay marriage will lead government to be “more receptive to [marital] units of three or more” (1996 Michigan Law Review).
2. Gay marriage would be bad for children. According to an article in Child Trends, “Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.” While gay marriage would encourage adoption of children by homosexual couples, which may be preferable to foster care, some lesbian couples want to have children through anonymous sperm donations, which means some children will be created purposely without knowledge of one of their biological parents. Research has also shown that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, suffer a greater rate of molestation within the family, and have homosexual experiences more often.
Gay marriage will also encourage teens who are unsure of their sexuality to embrace a lifestyle that suffers high rates of suicide, depression, HIV, drug abuse, STDs, and other pathogens. This is particularly alarming because, according to a 1991 scientific survey among 12-year-old boys, more than 25 percent feel uncertain about their sexual orientations. We have already seen that lesbianism is “chic” in certain elite social sectors.
Finally, acceptance of gay marriage will strengthen the notion that marriage is primarily about adult yearnings for intimacy and is not essentially connected to raising children. Children will be hurt by those who will too easily bail out of a marriage because it is not “fulfilling” to them.
3. Gay marriage would be bad for society. The effects we have described above will have strong repercussions on a society that is already having trouble maintaining wholesome stability in marriage and family life. If marriage and families are the foundation for a healthy society, introducing more uncertainty and instability in them will be bad for society.
In addition, we believe that gay marriage can only be imposed by activist judges, not by the democratic will of the people. The vast majority of people define marriage as the life-long union of a man and a woman. They will strongly resist redefinition. Like the 1973 judicial activism regarding abortion, the imposition of gay marriage would bring contempt for the law and our courts in the eyes of many Americans. It would exacerbate social conflict and division in our nation, a division that is already bitter and possibly dangerous.
In summary, we believe that the introduction of gay marriage will seriously harm Americans—including those in heterosexual marriages—over the long run. Strong political measures may be necessary to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, possibly even a constitutional amendment.
Some legal entitlements sought by gays and lesbians might be addressed by recognizing non-sexually defined domestic partnerships. But as for marriage, let us keep the definition as it is, and strengthen our capacity to live up to its ideals.
Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott, who both teach religion at Roanoke College, wrote an earlier version of this article for the Public Theology Project. Viewpoints published in “Speaking Out” do not necessarily represent those of Christianity Today.
Copyright © 2004 Christianity Today
Losses and Consequences – A pastor’s response to judge throwing out Proposition 8. (Added 11/10/11)
Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It’s Bad - a conclusion based upon what’s best for our children and society by author Frank Turek. (added 11/9/11)
Myths, Facts, and Consequences of the Homosexual Lifestyle – compilation of information from doctors and other sources (CDC data) (added 6/25/11)
Health Risks of Gay Sex – by John R Diggs, Jr. M. D. (added 6/25/11)
Institute for Marriage and Public Policy – Maggie Gallagher
Child Trends Research Briefs – a non-religious, nonprofit, nonpartisan research center that studies children at all stages of development.
Mapping America – Statistics that demonstrates,through data from major surveys, mainly U.S. federal surveys, that the intact married family and even unmarried two-parent biological families fare better than other families (single parent, same-sex parents, and etc.) (added 10/27)
A Further Betrayal of Children - a LifeSite Report
Sacrificing our children for same-sex ‘marriage’ - (WorldNetDaily.com)
A Gay Christian Movement Watch Exclusive: A Letter for Parents of Homosexual Children - (a deadly consequence of homosexuality)
Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ – Marriage between two biological parents is what’s best for children. (added 10/27/08)
Why Preserve Man-Woman Marriage – an incredible compilation of 20 reasons why marriage should be between a man and a woman. (added 10/29/08)
Playing the Race Card on Gay Marriage – Black Civil Rights and Gay rights not the same. See my 11/15/08 post on an article from the Boston Globe
OPPOSING VIEWPOINT -Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives - by Scott Bidstrup
The author, Scott Bidstrup, is a free-lance writer and political activist who has been active in human rights issues and in the gay rights movement, specializing in youth and marriage rights issues, since coming out as a gay man in 1994.
© 2008 – 2013, Carlotta Morrow. All rights reserved.