$100 bounty for proof of gay-marriage "harm" still unclaimed
It may not be as real-time as a blog, but the conversation about gay marriage taking place in the Oregonian's letters-to-the-editor section is fascinating.
First, the challenge by gay-marriage supporter Burl Ross of Lake Oswego, on June 20:
...Gay marriage "will do great harm" to the common welfare. Really? Name one. Seriously. I have $100 for the first person who can document "harm" to the common welfare or to the illusory "institution of marriage" caused by the legalization of gay marriage.Put up or please, please, please shut up.
BURL ROSS
Lake Oswego
And then, Thursday, an attempt to win the $100 bounty by gay-marriage opponent Beverly Ann Sharpf of Tigard:
I'm writing to claim the $100 offered by Burl Ross if anyone could name one "harm" that gay marriage does to the "common welfare" (Letters, June 20).The great and devastating harm is to the children of these unions. Not only will young children raised in a homosexual home face problems with their peers in school but social science has demonstrated that those children become unstable.
They will know no boundaries on sexual behavior. Traditional marriage will be meaningless to them. They will have learned to demand tolerance of the erratic lives they will end up living. ...
Ross can send my $100 check to The Oregonian, which can forward it to me.
BEVERLY ANN SHARPF
Tigard
And then, today, Burl Ross volleys the ball back over the net:
Beverly Ann Sharpf has submitted the first claim on my $100 reward that I offered for documented harm to society posed by legalized same-sex marriage (Letters, June 20), warning of "devastating harm to the children of these unions" (Letters, June 26).These children will become emotionally troubled, unstable sexual deviants, she says, shunned at school and a burden to society. Most horrific of all, children of gay marriages "will have learned to demand tolerance." God save us.
Sharpf offers no documentation to support her claims and, in fact, studies actually show the opposite:
"Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends" (American Psychological Association).
Legalizing same-sex unions will serve to further stabilize the lives of millions of children of gay parents. And stable families, whatever their makeup, lead to healthier children.
The $100 reward remains.
BURL ROSS
Lake Oswego
We'll see how long this keeps up.
Discuss.
|
June 28, 2008 |
letter to the editor | Comments (104 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Jun 28, 2008 3:11:00 PM
Judging by the number of letters she gets printed, Beverly Ann Sharpf is the Oregonian's favorite conservative letter writer. My suspicion, given how for nearly a month absolutely no letters were written on behalf of Ron Saxon, the Republican running against Ted Kulongoski, is that she is one of the few conservatives actually literate enough to write at all.
So let's all give a hand to Ms. Sharpf. She may be an elderly backwards looking bigot, but unlike most of her political brethren, at least she can spell.
Posted by: Rulial | Jun 28, 2008 3:40:41 PM
Ms. Sharpf asserts in her letter:
The homosexual movement is saying that the moral laws designed by man are better than the laws that God gave us to live by, and everyone should just accept that, live by them and "shut up."This illustrates the paranoia of the religious right. Nobody wants to force Ms. Sharpf to accept their sexual morals or to abandon the moral laws that (she believes) "God gave to us to live by". Rather, we feel that Ms. Sharpf's beliefs that God disapproves of same-sex marriage (or anyone else's religious beliefs about marriage) should have no role in formulating public policy.
Our society has substantial disagreement about exactly constitutes "the laws God [or gods, or no god] gave us to live by", but yet we need to formulate government policy together. We can get into a never-ending theological fight, or we can base our government policies on protecting individual rights and advancing the common good, leaving the enforcement of some of "the laws God gave us to live by" to our families, religious communities, or individual consciences. That's not saying that "the moral laws designed by man are better than the laws that God gave us to live by", that's just saying some should play a role in public policy and some shouldn't.
Furthermore, Ms. Sharpf asserts that children of same-sex marriages
will know no boundaries on sexual behavior.This is nonsense. Yes, they probably will have different boundaries on sexual behavior than Ms. Sharpf. But that's very different than having no boundaries.
It's similar to the stupid use of "family values" to describe conservative values and "values voters" to describe the conservative Christian segment of the electorate. The implication is that those who disagree lack values. I find this offensive: I have strong values, values which include rejecting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Posted by: Kristin | Jun 28, 2008 4:22:47 PM
Damn! I only wish he asked for proof of how heterosexual marriage was ruining the institution -- from Britney Spears to divorce statistics to Elliot Spitzer-like escapades, I would be able to write enough to be a richer woman.
Posted by: Don | Jun 28, 2008 5:02:15 PM
I googled Ms. Sharpf and came up with a few wonderfully amusing nuggets she had posted:
First, she has a webpage at: http://www.honestyshome.com/AboutBev.html. This site includes the following "Prayer for America: "Father, in the name of Jesus, I pray for the great sleeping giant, the church. I pray she would awake to righteousness and holiness in every denomination, in every body of believers,
and slumber no longer.
I pray we would begin to unify under the blood-stained banner of the cross and preach the gospel of the kingdom clearly and boldly.
I pray that we will not only stand up and speak up but that we will begin to reap a great harvest in our nation, bringing multitudes to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
I pray that You would restore a social conscience to our nation, that our nation would be restored to godly integrity and excellence, so that our children and our citizens can be proud
to be called citizens of America.
May the revival of the saints be so all-encompassing that it effects the spiritual complexion of our entire nation and influences our politics, our economy, our media and our entire society.
In the name of Jesus,
Amen"
She is also a big supporter of "Restore America" as well.
Posted by: Jiang | Jun 28, 2008 6:06:59 PM
...and I'll give HER $100 if she can demonstrate that her godly values are closer to the gospel Jesus than Adolf Hitler! Which monies will also go unclaimed!
Thx for the URL!
Posted by: ws | Jun 28, 2008 6:41:49 PM
"Father, in the name of Jesus, I pray for the great sleeping giant, the church. I pray she..." Ms. Sharpf
"..she..". That's interesting. The church is a she. I did not know that.
Posted by: Sam | Jun 28, 2008 7:17:08 PM
"PHOENIX -- Arizona voters will decide again in November whether to change the state's constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
A 16-4 vote by the state Senate on Friday night sends the gay marriage ban to the ballot. It had previously been approved by the House. "
=============
Another state bites the dust. From law to Constitution. States rights, baby!
Posted by: Douglas K | Jun 28, 2008 7:35:55 PM
You want proof of all the harm caused by gay marriage? It's all laid out here.
I'll accept the money at my Paypal account.
Posted by: Carl Fisher | Jun 28, 2008 9:14:49 PM
Jenni: Shhhhhhhh! Don't tell anyone else that strait couples produce homosexual offspring or that homosexual couples have strait kids!!!
Black is white, white is black.....the word is indeed a silly place.
Posted by: Carl Fisher | Jun 28, 2008 9:35:34 PM
hmmm...as a poor college graduate I might try to cash in on this...one could possibly argue that if we allow more people to marry, we are increasing the divorceable population. More marriages = more divorces.
Gay marriage does indeed make some happy, the divorce lawyers!!
Posted by: doretta | Jun 28, 2008 11:42:20 PM
"..she..". That's interesting. The church is a she. I did not know that.
The church is "the bride of Christ", don'tcha know?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 29, 2008 12:09:39 AM
Douglas -- that video was AWESOME! Thank you!
Posted by: Paul Pond | Jun 29, 2008 2:25:28 AM
Yes, here we have a plea for the social control that religionists have tried to assert for thousands of years. Lies don't hold up to knowledge and truth, they never have. Every advance of mankind has been accompanied by turmoil within organized religion as preachings adjust to undeniable truth... what is blasphemous one day is not only recognized as common the next, but as an ever- present and cherished element at the core of our daily lives.
Dogmatically what happens when values of love and messages of peace are contorted into rally cries of hate and lust for revenge? Why, we rally 'round things like "the blood stained banner of the cross". How human sacrifice. Sorry, I like to think we can can get beyond all that, as we must if we are to survive as a species.
Posted by: Larry McD | Jun 29, 2008 8:13:11 AM
Hey, Carl,
When we lived in Paso Robles (A Little Bit of Texas in the Gut of California) one of the most articulate advocates of same sex marriage was our VERY conservative Republican realtor. "It's all about economics," he liked to say... and then he echoed your sentiments: "More marriages = more divorces = more homes on the market & more people looking for new ones."
Of course, if you're a free market conservative you could see that as an economic benefit which would offset what Ms. Sharpf sees as obviously dire and ugly social consequences.
I dunno. Whatever, I'm getting married in October and Ms. Sharpf can come by an burn a cross on my lawn for Thanksgiving if she wants to.
Posted by: Murphy | Jun 29, 2008 9:52:20 AM
"I'm getting married in October and Ms. Sharpf can come by and burn a cross on my lawn for Thanksgiving if she wants to."
That's MRS. Sharpf to you sonny -- "Ms." is just plot by those nasty feminists to raise women above their station as helpmates and promote lesbianism and abortion. And after all, just as Jews are perfected by accepting Christ, women aren't complete until they're joined to a Man.
Can I say "joined"?
Posted by: Kristin | Jun 29, 2008 10:00:06 AM
Murphy --
You may be right up there with the wittiest comment ever ... thanks for the laugh.
Posted by: stan | Jun 29, 2008 10:59:15 AM
Portia DiRossi's pending nuptials have caused me unending pain and suffering.
Posted by: LiberalIncarnate | Jun 29, 2008 11:12:20 AM
Within a decade, gay marriage will be commonplace in the U.S. It WILL be the LAW of the LAND. So, the bigots will have been beaten.
However, for me... that is not enough. I want justice for the years of bigotry and betrayal. Years of building up the structural violence that has been done to a class of people. When will that day come?
Posted by: Rulial | Jun 29, 2008 12:10:40 PM
Liberalincarnate:
Probably never. Have blacks been compensated for the years of structural violence against them? Have women?
After the bigots are beaten, they will stop (overtly) being bigots and people will pretend they were never bigots (see William F. Buckley, Jr.). Once in a while, some idiot will say something to remind everyone that a lot of people used to (overtly) be bigots, and that person will be ostracized for doing so (see Trent Lott). But as far as payback goes, the best you'll get is that our descendants will wonder what was wrong with us for allowing crap like Measure 36 to be passed.
Posted by: ws | Jun 29, 2008 2:36:40 PM
"The church is "the bride of Christ", don'tcha know?" Doretta
That's deep. Still doesn't mean the church is a 'she', or rather, not only a 'she'. The church includes both men and women. I guess in this instance, 'bride' includes both 'she' and 'he'.
So in her Prayer for America, posted by Don:
"Father, in the name of Jesus, I pray for the great sleeping giant, the church. I pray she would awake to righteousness and holiness in every denomination, in every body of believers,
and slumber no longer." Ms Sharpf
...she could have substituted 'he' for 'she', and still have been correct, but I suppose doing so might make some believers a little uncomfortable with the resulting image of men being brides too.
Posted by: ws | Jun 29, 2008 2:38:47 PM
correction: Still doesn't mean the church is a 'she', or rather, only a 'she'.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 29, 2008 8:27:12 PM
The Oregon Constitution uses the word "man" three times, but doesn't define it anywhere.
Article I, Section 10. Administration of justice. No court shall be secret, but justice shall be administered, openly and without purchase, completely and without delay, and every MAN shall have remedy by due course of law for injury done him in his person, property, or reputation. ...Article I, Section 18. Private property or services taken for public use. Private property shall not be taken for public use, nor the particular services of any MAN be demanded, without just compensation... ...
Article XV, Section 5a. Policy regarding marriage. It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one MAN and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage. [Measure 36.]
I assume that there are rulings somewhere out there that indicate that the definition of "man" as used in Article I includes all persons - or perhaps, all adult persons.... regardless of gender.
If the previously determined definition of "man" under the Oregon Constitution includes both genders, doesn't Measure 36 actually limit marriage to hetero couples and female/female couples?
Just sayin'.
Posted by: Burl Ross | Jun 29, 2008 9:54:27 PM
Hi, Burl Ross here. Just want to thank everyone for their comments and support for my effort to find at least one harmful effect of gay marriage. I have received additional pledges from anonymous donors, uping the reward amount by several hundred dollars. But so far Bev Sharpf is the only claimant, and her argument that apparently there were never any imperfect or unhappy children until gay marriage came along seems not to be supported by, you know, the history of civilization. The post from mathematician Carl Fisher pointing out that more marriages = more divorces has an inescapable logic to it, and I consider him the top contender for the reward at this point, although Douglas K has also made a strong showing with his link to that very convincing YouTube video. Thank you both. My wife says she should get the $100 because this whole gay marriage issue is distracting me from other household chores, which may lead to our divorce -- also a valid argument. Editorial cartoonist Mike Luckovich published took a stab at the reward with "Wedding Competition" on June 18th (Google it), in which a morose heterosexual couple looks on at a flamboyant gay wedding, the woman commenting, "We can't compete with this!" Odd, isn't it, that for all the national press this issue has garnered over the past eight years (and more!) no broadcaster or pundit or politician has ever forced an anti-gay marriage interviewee to answer this question? I think my $100 is safe, but please do keep those entries coming!
Posted by: Glen HD28 | Jun 29, 2008 9:56:01 PM
Carl said "Gay marriage does indeed make some happy, the divorce lawyers!!"
Name one.
Posted by: AJ526 | Jun 29, 2008 10:41:01 PM
How should I get a hold of Ross? Not that I really expect that I will be given the $100 if I show proof, but who knows?
Posted by: Bert Lowry | Jun 30, 2008 6:17:59 AM
Well, even though I support gay marriage, I'm going to take a shot at the $100.00 (more now?).
Here's how gay marriage will do great harm to the common welfare: since married people in general pay less taxes than their single brethren, allowing gay marriage will result in more married people, hence less government revenue. That means that the government will have to cut spending or raise taxes.
Cutting spending almost always means the loss of important programs that people rely on (K-12 education, food stamps, etc.). Raising taxes, unless it targets just the top 10%, means less money in the pockets of decent hard-working Americans. That's a general cut in everyone's standard of living.
So that's my shot at the $100.00. Gay marriage = slashing important government programs, or gay marriage = lower standard of living.
Posted by: Bert Lowry | Jun 30, 2008 6:24:50 AM
Now that I think about it, I could make a similar argument about gays having/adopting children. Man, I should become a right-wing propagandist.
Posted by: JHL | Jun 30, 2008 8:32:34 AM
I think a good rule of thumb in filtering out crackpot attempts at the "prize" like Mrs. Sharpf's is to look for an argument against gay marriage that wasn't used as an argument against interracial marriage a few decades ago.
I recall when the Loving vs. Virginia hyseria was at a fever pitch, the conservatives claimed that the institution of marriage would be thrown into complete chaos, states would lose the ability to decide institutional racism for themselves (which was, apparently, their right), and children would be confused to the point of insanity... if people of different races were allowed to get married.
Now they're re-hashing the same lame arguments all over again.
Posted by: Don | Jun 30, 2008 9:08:45 AM
I agree JHL. I have been saying for a while now that gay marriage may well follow a similar path to that of inter-racial marriage. Five to ten years from now, all but a handful of states will likely allow gay marriage at least by some name or another.
Posted by: Miles | Jun 30, 2008 9:21:25 AM
Not to be a downer, but the danger in all of this is that we're buying into the argument that civil marriage is only legitimate if it doesn't cause any harm. What happens if in a few years a larger study is published that shows that kids who grow up in gay households do have some social problems? It's not that far-fetched given the anti-gay bigotry that still exists in schools and particularly organized sports. Or what if gay marriages in MA or CA start having higher divorce rates than straight marriages? Again, not an off-the-wall possibility if you consider that many gays who have been denied a fundamental right for so long may rush into marriage before the right is taken away.
Instead of arguing that we should allow gay marriage because it does no harm, we should instead argue that it's a matter of fundamental fairness. Even if some harm does come from it, gays should have the same right to enter into potentially harmful unions that straights do. No one questions the societal value when a man and woman want to get married. No one should question the societal value of gay marriage either.
Posted by: Burl Ross | Jun 30, 2008 9:36:13 AM
AJ526 says, "How should I get a hold of Ross? Not that I really expect that I will be given the $100 if I show proof, but who knows?"
Well, I'm right here. What is your proof? I'm giddy to see it.
By the way, to JHL's point, David Reinhard also submitted an answer -- polygamy and incest. No proof, of course, but in my letter to him in response (which the O did not print) I substituted the word "interracial" wherever he used "same-sex", and it came out like this: "The point is that once legislators, judges and other interracial-marriage advocates head down the path of redefining marriage to include interracial couples, there's no consistent principle that would restrict marriage to couples or consenting adults unrelated by blood." This reveals the 1950's version of this ludicrous right-wing argument.
Posted by: Burl Ross | Jun 30, 2008 9:57:25 AM
Miles says, "Instead of arguing that we should allow gay marriage because it does no harm, we should instead argue that it's a matter of fundamental fairness."
I am not arguing that we should allow gay marriage because it does no harm (it's a matter of fundamental fairness, as you say), I'm merely asking the opponents of gay marriage to show proof of the harm they say SHOULD disallow it.
The point is that anti-gay activists are stating, without a shred of proof, that there is harm NOW, right NOW, and no one is asking what that harm is. Until now. Later on, when/if a study shows that gay marriages are just as prone to divorce as straight ones (as if that's a "harm"), then let them try to make the argument that gay marriages should be disallowed -- without getting rid of all those divorce-prone straight marriages as well.
Posted by: Jared | Jun 30, 2008 10:14:47 AM
Here is a collection of evidence and studies relating to your question:
“...Gay marriage "will do great harm" to the common welfare. Really? Name one. Seriously. I have $100 for the first person who can document "harm" to the common welfare or to the illusory "institution of marriage" caused by the legalization of gay marriage.”
I’m not here to have personal argument, or yelling match. I am simply doing as you requested and stating the empirical evidence. Please let me know if there are any other studies you would like to see.
All the best,
Jared
Homosexual marriages are short lived.
In a study (1) of 2,000 U.S. and European gays in the 1960s, researchers found that "living by oneself is probably the chief residential pattern for male homosexuals. It provides the freedom to pursue whatever style of homosexual life one chooses, whether it be furtive encounters in parks or immersion in the homosexual subculture. In addition, homosexual relationships are fragile enough to make this residential pattern common whether deliberate or not."
A 1970 study in San Francisco (2) found that approximately 61% of gays and 37% of lesbians were living alone.
In 1977, the Spada Report (3) noted that only 8% of the gays in its sample claimed to have a monogamous relationship with a live-in lover.
The same year (4) over 5,000 gays and lesbians were asked: "Do you consider or have you considered yourself 'married' to another [homosexual]?" Only 40% of lesbians and 25% of gays said "yes." The authors noted that with "gay male couples, it is hard to even suggest that there are norms of behavior. [One] might expect to find a clear pattern of 'categories' emerging from the answers to the questions about lovers, boy friends, and relationships. In fact, no such pattern emerged."
In the early 1980s, a large non-random sample (5) of almost 8,000 heterosexual and homosexual couples responded to advertisements in alternative newspapers. The average number of years together was 9.8 for the married, 1.7, for cohabiting heterosexuals, 3.5 for the gay couples, and 2.2 for the lesbian couples.
Variety Over Monogamy
In 1987, only 23% of gays in London (6) reported sexual exclusivity "in the month before interview."
In 1990, only 12% of gays in Toronto, Canada (7) said that they were in monogamous relationships.
In 1991, in the midst of the AIDS crisis, Australian gays (8) were monitored to see whether they had changed their sexual habits. There was essentially no change in 5 years: 23% reported a monogamous relationship, 35% a non-monogamous relationship, and 29% only "casual sex." The authors reported that "there were almost as many men moving into monogamy as out of it, and out of casual-only partnerships as into them."
In 1993, a study (9) of 428 gays in San Francisco found that only 14% reported just a single sexual partner in the previous year. The vast majority had multiple sex partners.
In 1994, the largest national gay magazine'° reported that only 17% of its sample of 2,500 gays claimed to live together in a monogamous relationship.
Even gays who do have long-term partners do not play by the typical 'rules.' Only 69% of Dutch gays" with a marriage-type 'partner' actually lived together. The average number of "outside partners" per year of 'marriage' was 7.1 and increased from 2.5 in the first year of the relationship to 11 in the 6th year.
Why are homosexual marriages shorter and less committed than traditional marriages?
At any given time, less than a third of gays and approximately half of lesbians are living with a lover. Because the relationships are so short, the average homosexual can anticipate many, many 'divorces.'
At any instant, about 10% of gays live together in monogamous relationships. Their monogamy seldom lasts beyond a year. Perhaps half of lesbians live together in monogamous relationships. These typically dissolve in one to three years.
These same patterns appear in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, both long before and during the AIDS epidemic. This consistency suggests a reality associated with the practice of homosexuality, one unlikely to be affected by changes in marriage laws.
The Danish Experience
In Denmark, a form of homosexual marriage has been legal since 1989. Through 1995, less than 5% of Danish homosexuals had gotten married, and 28% of these marriages had already ended in divorce or death. (12)
The Danish experience provides no evidence that gay 'marriage' is beneficial. Men who married men were three times more apt to be widowers before the age of 55 than men who married women! Similarly, a woman who married a woman was three times more apt to be a widow than a woman who married a man.
Studies show homosexual marriage is hazardous to one's health.
Across the world, numerous researchers have reported that 'committed' or 'coupled' homosexuals are more apt to engage in highly risky and biologically unsanitary sexual practices than are 'single' gays. As a consequence of this activity, they increase their chances of getting AIDS and other sexually transmitted or blood-borne diseases.
In 1983, near the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, gays in San Francisco (13) who claimed to be in "monogamous relationships" were compared to those who were not. Without exception, those in monogamous relationships more frequently reported that they had engaged in biologically unhealthful activity during the past year. As examples, 4.5% of the monogamous v. 2.2% of the unpartnered had engaged in drinking urine, and 33.3% v. 19.6% claimed to practice oral-anal sex.
In a sample of London gays (6) in 1987, those infected with HIV were more apt to have regular partners than those not so infected. In 1989, Italian researchers (14) investigated 127 gays attending an AIDS clinic. Twelve percent of those without steady partners v. 28% of those with steady partners were HIV+. The investigators remarked that "to our surprise, male prostitutes did not seem to be at increased risk, whereas homosexuals who reported a steady partner (i.e., the same man for the previous six months) carried the highest relative risk."
During 1991-92, 677 gays in England (15) were asked about "unprotected anal sex." Those who had 'regular' partners reported sex lives which were "about three times as likely to involve unprotected anal sex than partnerships described as 'casual/one-night stands."' Sex with a regular partner "was far more important than awareness of HIV status in facilitating high-risk behaviour."
A 1993 British sexual diary study (16) of 385 gays reported that men in "monogamous" relationships practiced more anal intercourse and more anal-oral sex than those without a steady partner. It concluded that "gay men in a Closed relationship... exhibit... the highest risk of HIV transmission."
In 1992, a sample (17) of 2,593 gays from Tucson, AZ and Portland, OR reinforced the consistent finding that "gay men in primary relationships are significantly more likely than single men to have engaged in unprotected anal intercourse."
Similarly, a 1993 sample (18) of gays from Barcelona, Spain practiced riskier sex with their regular partners than with casual pick ups.
Even a 1994 study (19) of over 600 lesbians demonstrated that "the connection between monogamy and unprotected sex,... was very consistent across interviews. Protected sex was generally equated with casual encounters; unprotected sex was generally equated with trusting relationships. Not using latex barriers was seen as a step in the process of relational commitment. Choosing to have unprotected sex indicated deepening trust and intimacy as the relationship grew."
Homosexual marriage has the highest rate of domestic violence.
Domestic violence is a public health concern. Among heterosexuals, not only is it an obvious marker of a troubled marriage, but media attention and tax dollars to aid 'battered women' have both grown tremendously in recent years. What is not reported is the empirical evidence suggesting that homosexual couples have higher rates of domestic violence than do heterosexual couples, especially among lesbians.
In 1996, (21) Susan Holt, coordinator of the domestic violence unit of the Los Angeles Gay Lesbian Center, said that "domestic violence is the third largest health problem facing the gay and lesbian community today and trails only behind AIDS and substance abuse... in terms of sheer numbers and lethality."
The average rate of domestic violence in traditional marriage, established by a nationwide federal government survey (22) of 6,779 married couples in 1988, is apparently less than 5% per year. During their most recent year of marriage, 2.0% of husbands and 3.2% of wives said that they were hit, shoved or had things thrown at them. Unmarried, cohabiting heterosexuals report (23) higher rates of violence, a rate of about 20% to 25% per year.
When the same standard is applied to gay and lesbian relationships, the following evidence emerges:
In 1987, (24) 48% of 43 lesbian, and 39% of 39 gay Georgia couples reported domestic violence.
In 1988, (25) 70 lesbian and gay students participated in a study of conflict resolution in gay and lesbian relationships. Adjusted upward for reporting by only one partner in the couple (i.e., "only one side of the story"), an estimated 29% of gay and 56% of lesbian couples experienced violence in the past year.
In 1989, (26) 284 lesbians were interviewed who were involved "in a committed, cohabitating lesbian relationship" during the last 6 months. Adjusted for reporting by just one partner, an estimated 43% of the relationships were violent in the past year.
In 1990, (27) nearly half of 90 lesbian couples in Los Angeles reported domestic violence yearly. 21% of these women said that they were mothers. Interestingly, of those mothers who had children living with them, 11 lived in "violent" and 11 in "nonviolent" relationships. Thus, unlike traditional marriage where parents will often forego fighting to shield the children from hostility, there was no evidence from this investigation that the presence of youngsters reduced the rate of domestic violence.
Overall, the evidence is fairly compelling that homosexual domestic violence exceeds heterosexual domestic violence. The limited scientific literature suggests that physical domestic violence occurs every year among less than 5% of traditionally married couples, 20% to 25% of cohabiting heterosexuals, and approximately half of lesbian couples. The evidence is less certain for gays, but their rate appears to fall somewhere between that for unmarried, cohabiting heterosexuals and lesbians.
Homosexuals make poor parents.
Fewer than 20 empirical studies have been done on homosexual parents. These studies have been small, biased, and generally fail to address many of the traditional concerns regarding homosexual parenting. However, the limited evidence they have generated supports what common sense would expect.
The largest study, (30) and the only one based on a random sample, estimated that less than half of a percent of Americans have had a homosexual parent. Those who did were more likely to:
report having had sex with a parent,
experience homosexuality as their first sexual encounter,
be sexually molested,
become homosexual or bisexual, and
report dissatisfaction with their childhood.
The various studies, (31) added together, suggest that the children of homosexuals are at least 3 times more apt to become homosexual than children raised by the traditionally married.
Further, there is reasonable evidence, both in the empirical literature and in dozens of court cases dealing with the issue, (32) that children of homosexuals are more apt to be sexually exposed to the homosexual lifestyle and/or molested.
Finally, substantial evidence (31) suggests that children of homosexuals are more apt to doubt their own sexuality, be embarrassed by their homosexual parent(s), and be teased and taunted by their peers.
________________________________________
References
1. Weinberg, M.S. Williams, C.J. Male homosexuals: their problems adaptations. NY: Penguin, 1975.
2. Bell, A. P. Weinberg, M.S. Homosexualaies NY:Simon Schusver, 1978.
3. Spada, J. The Spada repon. NY:Sigmet, 1979
4. Jay, K. Young, A. The gay report. NY:Summit, 1979.
5. Blumstein, P. Schwartz, P. American couples NY:Morrow, 1983.
6. Hunt, A. J., et al. Genitourinary Medicine, 1990, 66, 423427.
7. Orr, K., Morrison, K. Doing it in the 90s. Univ. Toronto Laval Universities, 1993.
8. Kippax, S., et al. AIDS, 1993, 7, 257-263.
9. Osmond, D. H., et al. Amer I Public Health, 1994, 84, 1933-1937.
10. Lever, J. Advocate, Issue 661/662, August, 23, 1994, 15-24.
11. Deenen, A. A., et al. Archives Serual Behavior,1994, 23, 421431.
12. Wockner, R. Advocate, Issue 726, February 4, 1997, 26.
13. McKusick, L., et al. Amer I Public Health, 1985, 75, 493-496.
14. Franceschi, S., et al. Lancet, 1989, 1, 42.
15. Dawson, J. M., et al. AIDS, 1994, 8, 837-841.
16. Coxon A.P.M., et al. AIDS, 1993, 7, 877-882.
17. Hoff, C.C., et al. I Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 1997, 14, 72-78.
18. Wang, J. et al. Soc Sci Med, 1997, 44, 469-77.
19. Stevens, P. E. Soc Sci Med, 1994, 39,1565-78.
20. Cameron, P., Playfair, W. L., Wellum, S. The longevity of homosexuals. Omega, 1994, 29, 249 272.
21. Holt S. Ending the cycle of domestic violence. Gay Lesbian Times, 9126196, p. 39.
22. Sorenson, J, et al.. Amer I Public Health. 1996, 86, 3540.
23. Ellis, D. Violence Victims, 1989, 4, 235-255.
24. Gardner, R. Method of conflict resolution correlates af physical aggression victimization in heterosezual, lesbian, gay male couples. Unpub Doc Dis, U Georgia, 1988.
25. Waterman, C.K, et al. J Sel Research 1989, 26, 118 124.
26. Lockhart, L.L., et al. I Interpersanal Vialence, 1994, 9, 469492.
27. Coleman, V. Violence in lesbian couples: a berween groups comparison. Unpub Doc Dis, CA Sch Prof Psych:LA, 1990.
28. Merrill, G. Press release from National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, October 22, 1996 from San Francisco various inteniews in November, 1996 with senior author Memll, Jem Lynn Fields in Chicago, Bea Hanson in New York.
29. Anti-Lesbian/Gay Violence in 1995. Horizons Community Senices. Self published.
30. Cameron, P. Cameron, K. Homosexual parents, Adolescence, 1996, 31, 757-776.
31. Cameron, P. Cameron, K. Did the APA misrepresent the scientific literature to couns in suppon of homosexual custody? I Psychology, 1997, 131, 1-20.
32. Cameron, P. Cameron, K. Homosexual parents: a natural comparison. Psychol Repts, 1997, in press.
________________________________________
Posted by: Marshall Collins | Jun 30, 2008 10:41:04 AM
empirical evidence my ass. This is all copy and pasted from sites like the Family Research Institute and other blatently heterosexist and bigoted organizations that hide their prejudice behind "science".
Over half the articles used wouldn't apply today due to being way too old. The culture of the modern LGBT community is constantly changing as the social climate around then changes. Health and disease studies from the 80's and early 90's are extremely skewed for the worst as during that time sex education for the LGBT community was severly lacking (it still is in my opinion) and many many things changed after the onset of AIDS.
As for demestic violence and parenting. I am suprised you would even try siting Dr Don Cameron. Wasn't he kicked out of the American Psychological Association for gross ethics violations?
Again, at the end of the day this is all copy and pasted talking points from some sort of "Our version of family is the only version acceptable" Institute that either cherry picks the quotes to make them sound best for their agenda or they just recruit someone that can legally put the term Dr. in front of their name and have them conduct a biased survey with biased results.
Posted by: AJ526 | Jun 30, 2008 10:48:07 AM
Regardless of whether you like the source, Jared's evidence appears legit. Congrats Jared! Don't spend it all in one place!
Posted by: AJ526 | Jun 30, 2008 10:56:35 AM
Miles and Burl, you say that gay marriage is "fundamental fairness". If someone fell in love with a horse or a dog, would it be "fundamental fairness" to let them get married too?
If gay marriage were natural, wouldn't gay couples be able to reproduce?
Posted by: AJ526 | Jun 30, 2008 11:01:02 AM
There is another negative effect of gay marriage! If gay marriage is legalized, people are going to start demanding marriage with their pets. Can you imagine the chaos? Companies are going to have to pay for employees "spouses" vet bills...
If you decide for some reason not to give the money to Jared, I will accept it.
Posted by: Jefffrane | Jun 30, 2008 11:09:55 AM
I'm not sure why I bother . . .
If gay marriage were natural, wouldn't gay couples be able to reproduce?
Marriage isn't "natural". It is a cultural phenomenon that humans have developed, in a wide variety of forms, outside their "natural" behavior. There are good economic and social reasons for marriage, in whatever form best suits the surrounding culture. At different times, in different places, it has varied a lot from what conservatives define as "traditional."
AJ526, if you find yourself continuing to obsess over bestiality, I'd suggest you seek professional help. It's not healthy to humans, and it's cruel to animals.
Posted by: Jared | Jun 30, 2008 11:13:30 AM
Marshall,
Unless you show evidence to the contrary, I am sorry, but you cannot disprove my evidence. You cannot simply say "that is not good evidence." Bro, that's not how logical arguments work. It's a form of an Ad Hominem argument to attack the source rather than attack the evidence. Along your line of argument you also make the error of a Genetic Fallacy. And...following these, your argument also commits the errors of Guilt By Association and of Poisoning the Well.
I have answered the question asked. Unless you can specifically and empirically deny or refute something I stated, it does no good to rant.
Posted by: JHL | Jun 30, 2008 11:16:50 AM
AJ526, your sick argument was actually brought up in the 1960s... that if we started allowing white people to marry black people, the next "logical" step was that they would want to start marrying animals.
Didn't happen then; won't happen now.
Posted by: JHL | Jun 30, 2008 11:20:12 AM
Jared, it's like this:
Hey. I just found a "study" that says that Jared is, in fact, a horse. (Source: Me, BlueOregon, 6/30/08.)
Well, you may disagree with my assertion, but you can't deny the evidence. After all, it's been written down.
So therefore, as a horse, Jared is unable to hold property in the State of Oregon and thusly ineligible to receive the $100 prize. Bummer.
Posted by: AJ526 | Jun 30, 2008 11:21:31 AM
I was just using that as an example. It seems rather an extrem example, but than I could definitely imagine pet owners trying to use that to get benefits for their pets.
Heterosexual marriage IS natural and has been practiced for thousands of years. Homosexual marriage is not.
I definitely believe it is better for children to have a father and a mother who stay together for their whole life. I don't think there are many who would disagree with this.
Posted by: Jiang | Jun 30, 2008 11:23:34 AM
Another Blog has researched the activities of the xtians behind this.
Posted by: Jefffrane | Jun 30, 2008 11:24:27 AM
Jared, you might be more convincing if some of your citations were from this century. A good many of them are from the 1970s, for cripes' sake.
As to the methodology of the "studies", you could start here.
Posted by: AJ526 | Jun 30, 2008 11:31:38 AM
JHL, I strongly disagree with anybody who made that argument in the 60's. Racism is one of the things that really makes me upset. I also believe that homosexuals should be treated equally. It would make me very upset to see a homosexual discriminated against as well.
But homsexual marriage should not be forced upon society. I believe, though I have no evidence right now to prove it, that several powerful societies such as Gommorah, Rome, and Sodom collapsed soon after recognizing gay unions/marriage. I certainly do not want to see tht happen to America.
Perhaps using the example of somone wanting to marry their pets was not the right thing to do. I don't know. It just seems like that might be a valid point. Maybe I am wrong.
Posted by: Carl Fisher | Jun 30, 2008 11:33:19 AM
Heterosexual marriage IS natural and has been practiced for thousands of years. Homosexual marriage is not.
According to historian Mel Brooks in History of the World Part I, homosexual marriage has been around nearly as long as heterosexual marriage.
Posted by: Burl Ross | Jun 30, 2008 11:37:22 AM
Nice post, Jared! There's a lot there to digest about the effects of gay relationships, gay parenting, etc, even if it is cut-and-pasted from outdated and perhaps biased sources. But my question is about the harm to society caused not by gay relationships and gay parenting but by the legalization of gay marriage. How do legally married gay couples compare with unmarried gay couples in terms of "harm to the common welfare"? How do the children of unmarried gay couples fare vs. the children of legally married gay couples? It's the legalization that is the issue here. If the righties want to argue that the legally recognized, protected family structure provided by marriage is WORSE for children and society than non-legalized family groupings, bring it on!
I appreciate your input. No yelling match here.
Best,
Burl
Posted by: AJ526 | Jun 30, 2008 11:54:40 AM
I would say this is evidence of harm to society:
The Danish Experience
In Denmark, a form of homosexual marriage has been legal since 1989. Through 1995, less than 5% of Danish homosexuals had gotten married, and 28% of these marriages had already ended in divorce or death. (12)
The Danish experience provides no evidence that gay 'marriage' is beneficial. Men who married men were three times more apt to be widowers before the age of 55 than men who married women! Similarly, a woman who married a woman was three times more apt to be a widow than a woman who married a man.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jun 28, 2008 2:02:07 PM
Not to mention that everyone I know who is gay had parents who were heterosexual and the homosexual couples' kids ended up heterosexual.
Erratic lives?
Man, the stuff people will make up to excuse their behavior.