Boosters of same-sex parenting rely heavily on sociologists’ surveys. But do these really prove their case? - by Walter R. Schumm

In MercatorNet 

As a sociologist my life is all about creating, taking and interpreting surveys of attitudes and opinions. So I sometimes feel a bit depressed at how knuckle-headed the media can be when reporting about research on same-sex marriage. Let’s look at a slogan which is being repeated over and over: Same-sex parents are just as good at parenting as heterosexuals. This looks simple -- but its simplicity is deceptive. Let me unpack it for you.

What is meant by “same-sex”? 

Two sisters living together to save money, raising children from former husbands who died at a young age? Two bisexual women with children from previous marriages to men? Two lesbians who have each conceived a child by sperm donation? Two gay men who have adopted a child jointly?

Different situations can impact children very differently; thus, it is risky to subsume them all under the one label of “same-sex parent”. Does it mean that one parent had some same-sex experience as a teenager but now is heterosexual? Does it mean that one parent identifies as heterosexual but engages in gay affairs just for the sex? Sexual orientation is defined by attraction, behavior, and identity, with all combinations in between. Does it mean a woman who was raped at age six and became lesbian out of a hatred for her rapist? Does it mean a woman who feels she can be a better mother with another woman at her side rather than a man? Or, are we talking about someone who identifies as a “gay” man because he has found he has no sexual attraction to women or to men?

What is meant by “good”?

Does it mean they are provided adequate nutrition? Does it mean they are growing up with no plans on having sex until they marry? Does it mean they plan on cohabiting before they marry? Are they being raised to believe that they can marry a man or a woman when they marry? To what extent do the children believe in and practice delayed gratification? Are their gender roles distinct from those of the opposite sex? Are they growing up to love and serve God, putting that before personal pleasure or satisfaction? Does it mean they are academically prepared to succeed at the university?

What is meant by “just as”?

Does it mean that in a comparison of two biased non-random convenience samples, small in size, that there was an effect size difference that was moderate in magnitude but not statistically significant? Does it mean that there was a national random sample from which groups were compared with adequate statistical power to detect even small effect sizes? Were appropriate statistics used to make the comparisons?

What is meant by “parenting”?

Does it mean the parent is biologically related to the child? Does it mean that the parent spends only one day every two weeks with the child because of custody disputes? Does it mean that the father is the child’s biological father but the father has long ago disappeared and has not seen the child in the past ten years? Does it mean that the parent is “around” but for all practical purposes the child is being raised by a nanny? Does it mean that the parent has so much money that paid employees are, for all practical purposes, raising the child?

What is meant by “heterosexuals”?

Are these folks legally married? Cohabiting? In a civil union? Is the parent heterosexual but parenting alone because of the death or separation from the other person? Are the parents heterosexuals with a per capita family income (two parents earning $40,000 a year with six children) of a tenth of what the per capita family income of the comparison group (eg, one lesbian parent earning $100,000 a year with one child) happens to be?

What does the research say?

What may look simple on the surface can be pretty complicated. Research has been very limited in the past but is getting better. So what do we know?

First, despite continued denials, it appears that children of gay-lesbian-bisexual (GLB) parents are more likely to grow up to engage in same-sex sexual behavior, at least on an experimental basis, or to identify as GLB, than children of heterosexual parents.

This may be related to the evidence that GLB parents are much more flexible about or tolerant of their children adopting a non-heterosexual orientation than are most heterosexual parents. There is some evidence that sexual behavior by heterosexual children of same-sex parents is less traditional (cohabit sooner, more likely to have sex before marriage).

Second, if same-sex parents have long-term stable relationships, their children may do as well in some areas (psychological adjustment, school success), at least as reported by the parent (we have less information in terms of child reports or independent observers). However, same-sex parents (in contrast to same-sex couples, whose relationships may be as stable) appear to have far less stable relationships than heterosexual married, even cohabiting couples. That is, instability may be a problem for children, for both same-sex and heterosexual families. But the risk is greater for the former and their children on average may be disadvantaged.

Third, there is growing evidence that the gender roles of the children of same-sex couples, including adoptive same-sex couples, are more “flexible”. What that means in practice is that among the children of heterosexuals, the most masculine girl scores well below the average score for boys while the most feminine of boys scores well above the average score for girls. Among the children of same-sex parents, it is not uncommon for the most masculine girls to score above the average for boys and for the most feminine of boys to score below the average for girls (ie, much greater overlap of the distributions, which are also closer to each other).

Fourth, there is growing evidence that the children of same-sex couples may be more likely to use or abuse illegal drugs. This may reflect greater such drug usage by homosexuals in general or may reflect less parental training in delayed gratification by same-sex parents. Evidence is mounting that same-sex persons are more likely to have a background of childhood sexual abuse, which might or might not play into how they parent, if they become parents.

Because of selective reporting by most media, it is likely that most readers have never heard of much of this information.

If parents have a DNA relationship to a child, they take better care of the child. (I am referring to research that live-in boyfriends tend to abuse their girlfriend’s children more than do biological fathers.) In the traditional marriage, both parents have a DNA relationship to all of their children. This creates a quandary in that while we want to be supportive of all families and may need to be more supportive of non-DNA families, we really want as a society overall to encourage parenting by stable-relationship parents who are the biological parents of the child.

Who is doing the heavy lifting?

From another angle, we want to reward those in society who do the most difficult “emotional work”. Anyone who has ever tried living with a member of the opposite sex knows that it is emotional work and that it is not always easy.

There are numerous ways in which gender makes for conflict in heterosexual relationships. In terms of happiness in heterosexual relationships, if there are differences, it is most often that the woman is less happy.

It is clear that one result of no-fault divorce has been the feminization of poverty in which women lose much of their socioeconomic status after a divorce, even though they are more often responsible for the care of the children. If we begin to treat same-sex lesbian marriages as the same as heterosexual ones, what are we really telling young women? Go ahead and marry a man because this is good for society (both of you will have a DNA relationship to the child and your relationship will be more stable, which is good for the child) but you will have to accept the risk of a greater likelihood of being unhappy and of being ruined financially if your unhappiness leads to divorce, not to mention all the gender-related or sexuality-related conflicts you will have to endure even if you do not divorce.

But, we will grant the same benefits and respect to other women who bypass all those risks and dangers by hooking up with another woman. Will not this make women who marry men look and feel a bit like fools?

And what about men?

Research is clear that gay men usually feel OK about sex outside a civil union or marriage, often by mutual consent. How often will a heterosexual married man get “mutual” consent from his wife to have an affair? Some recent research with lesbians has found that some of them look forward to marriage precisely because marriage would make having sex outside the marriage easier on the relationship. This is the exact opposite of what occurs for most heterosexual couples. That is, how many heterosexual women look forward to marriage so their husband can start having sex with other women or so they can start having sex with other men?

In other words, one cost of marriage for heterosexuals is sexual restriction, which may involve personal sacrifice. With same-sex marriage, that social norm will decline further in strength, in my estimation.

Thus, heterosexual men and women are doing what society calls for -- but we will be punishing them for it. It’s like telling a soldier: we need you to go and fight the enemy face-to-face 24 hours a day and to risk maiming and death. But we, in order to be “fair”, are going to grant the same respect, rank, promotions, or veterans benefits and privileges to soldiers who stayed home and worked only eight hours a day out of air conditioned buildings.

The challenge of proving the “harm”

The evidence, including my own research, suggests that same-sex couples are happier than opposite-sex couples. And why not? Sociology can only capture part of the spectrum of human happiness. If a survey defines it as fewer hassles, less conflict over gender-related issues or sexuality issues, more disposable income and less fretting about children, what would you expect?

But if we grant same-sex couples equality, we will create a grander inequality for the far larger proportion of society who accept the “challenges” (ie, the greater risks and costs) of living heterosexually while providing society with greater benefits in terms of greater stability and care for their own biologically-related children.

If you say “prove the harm”, I say, OK, how would you prove harm if all combat pay and decorations were eliminated in order to be “fair” and to create equality for non-combat soldiers? After all, some soldiers may not feel they were “born for” combat, may not feel attracted to it, may feel unsuited for it, yet they are soldiers. Surely they deserve the same respect, honor, and compensation?

If all benefits were “equalized”, and the military found it more difficult to get volunteers for battle, it could always be blamed on something else. If re-enlistment rates went down, it would be blamed on inadequate retention pay. The military could demand that all soldiers face combat. If the soldiers who were forced into combat against their will didn’t perform well, it could be blamed on bad leadership at the unit level.

I am not sure you could ever prove harm to the satisfaction of those who demanded the elimination of all differential pay and benefits for combat veterans versus non-combat veterans.

Proving the “harm” of same-sex marriage is similar. No matter what you find in the research, it will be denigrated and dismissed by those in favor of same-sex marriage. The reality is that US states are aligned on a sexual freedom continuum that includes a number of matters (sex before marriage, cohabitation, same-sex marriage, acceptance of divorce, etc.) related to the so-called Second Demographic Transition. Trying to separate the effects of same-sex marriage from the entire cluster of changes is like asking which bee of the five that stung you did the most damage. No matter what, the other four bees can almost always be blamed more than the fifth bee.

It is my opinion that for a social system to work optimally, everyone should play by the same rules, with a few exceptions (eg, disabilities). Marriage has traditionally meant sexual fidelity, at least in principle. It has meant two people of different genders working through gender conflicts. It has meant two people committing themselves to each other for a lifetime. It has meant having children that are biologically related to both parents or being supportive of others who have such children. It has meant raising children who are not ashamed of being a boy or a girl.

If we are to begin saying that sexual fidelity is not really all that important, that having children is not all that important, that accepting gender role conflicts is something to bypass if possible, that gender roles are not all that important for children, or that long-term relationship stability is not all that important, we are really saying this: people can pick and choose which rules to play by with the right to reject any rules, restrictions, or limits that they don’t like.

Allowing everyone to make up their own rules may sound like a wonderful freedom, but consider what would happen if football was played with no rules or no referees? What if the Geneva Conventions for warfare were handled that way (it’s up to each soldier to follow or not follow them, with no consequences either way)? What if children could choose what homework assignments to do or not do? Even those who are pro-gay recognize this principle latently when they criticize how some places allow same-sex marriage and others do not (ie, the rules/laws change from place to place and are not the same for everybody).

If folks want the same benefits of marriage, they should be willing to play by the same rules. Research tells us that this is not the case at present and logic suggests it may never be. If the rules do not matter any longer or if everyone can make up their own rules as they go along, the meaning of marriage changes substantially from what it has been traditionally.

As a sociologist my life is all about creating, taking and interpreting surveys of attitudes and opinions. So I sometimes feel a bit depressed at how knuckle-headed the media can be when reporting about research on same-sex marriage. Let’s look at a slogan which is being repeated over and over: Same-sex parents are just as good at parenting as heterosexuals. This looks simple -- but its simplicity is deceptive. Let me unpack it for you.
What is meant by “same-sex”?
Two sisters living together to save money, raising children from former husbands who died at a young age? Two bisexual women with children from previous marriages to men? Two lesbians who have each conceived a child by sperm donation? Two gay men who have adopted a child jointly?
Different situations can impact children very differently; thus, it is risky to subsume them all under the one label of “same-sex parent”. Does it mean that one parent had some same-sex experience as a teenager but now is heterosexual? Does it mean that one parent identifies as heterosexual but engages in gay affairs just for the sex? Sexual orientation is defined by attraction, behavior, and identity, with all combinations in between. Does it mean a woman who was raped at age six and became lesbian out of a hatred for her rapist? Does it mean a woman who feels she can be a better mother with another woman at her side rather than a man? Or, are we talking about someone who identifies as a “gay” man because he has found he has no sexual attraction to women or to men?
What is meant by “good”?
Does it mean they are provided adequate nutrition? Does it mean they are growing up with no plans on having sex until they marry? Does it mean they plan on cohabiting before they marry? Are they being raised to believe that they can marry a man or a woman when they marry? To what extent do the children believe in and practice delayed gratification? Are their gender roles distinct from those of the opposite sex? Are they growing up to love and serve God, putting that before personal pleasure or satisfaction? Does it mean they are academically prepared to succeed at the university?
What is meant by “just as”?
Does it mean that in a comparison of two biased non-random convenience samples, small in size, that there was an effect size difference that was moderate in magnitude but not statistically significant? Does it mean that there was a national random sample from which groups were compared with adequate statistical power to detect even small effect sizes? Were appropriate statistics used to make the comparisons?
What is meant by “parenting”?
Does it mean the parent is biologically related to the child? Does it mean that the parent spends only one day every two weeks with the child because of custody disputes? Does it mean that the father is the child’s biological father but the father has long ago disappeared and has not seen the child in the past ten years? Does it mean that the parent is “around” but for all practical purposes the child is being raised by a nanny? Does it mean that the parent has so much money that paid employees are, for all practical purposes, raising the child?
What is meant by “heterosexuals”?
Are these folks legally married? Cohabiting? In a civil union? Is the parent heterosexual but parenting alone because of the death or separation from the other person? Are the parents heterosexuals with a per capita family income (two parents earning $40,000 a year with six children) of a tenth of what the per capita family income of the comparison group (eg, one lesbian parent earning $100,000 a year with one child) happens to be?
What does the research say?
What may look simple on the surface can be pretty complicated. Research has been very limited in the past but is getting better. So what do we know?
First, despite continued denials, it appears that children of gay-lesbian-bisexual (GLB) parents are more likely to grow up to engage in same-sex sexual behavior, at least on an experimental basis, or to identify as GLB, than children of heterosexual parents.
This may be related to the evidence that GLB parents are much more flexible about or tolerant of their children adopting a non-heterosexual orientation than are most heterosexual parents. There is some evidence that sexual behavior by heterosexual children of same-sex parents is less traditional (cohabit sooner, more likely to have sex before marriage).
Second, if same-sex parents have long-term stable relationships, their children may do as well in some areas (psychological adjustment, school success), at least as reported by the parent (we have less information in terms of child reports or independent observers). However, same-sex parents (in contrast to same-sex couples, whose relationships may be as stable) appear to have far less stable relationships than heterosexual married, even cohabiting couples. That is, instability may be a problem for children, for both same-sex and heterosexual families. But the risk is greater for the former and their children on average may be disadvantaged.
Third, there is growing evidence that the gender roles of the children of same-sex couples, including adoptive same-sex couples, are more “flexible”. What that means in practice is that among the children of heterosexuals, the most masculine girl scores well below the average score for boys while the most feminine of boys scores well above the average score for girls. Among the children of same-sex parents, it is not uncommon for the most masculine girls to score above the average for boys and for the most feminine of boys to score below the average for girls (ie, much greater overlap of the distributions, which are also closer to each other).
Fourth, there is growing evidence that the children of same-sex couples may be more likely to use or abuse illegal drugs. This may reflect greater such drug usage by homosexuals in general or may reflect less parental training in delayed gratification by same-sex parents. Evidence is mounting that same-sex persons are more likely to have a background of childhood sexual abuse, which might or might not play into how they parent, if they become parents.
Because of selective reporting by most media, it is likely that most readers have never heard of much of this information.
If parents have a DNA relationship to a child, they take better care of the child. (I am referring to research that live-in boyfriends tend to abuse their girlfriend’s children more than do biological fathers.) In the traditional marriage, both parents have a DNA relationship to all of their children. This creates a quandary in that while we want to be supportive of all families and may need to be more supportive of non-DNA families, we really want as a society overall to encourage parenting by stable-relationship parents who are the biological parents of the child.
Who is doing the heavy lifting?
From another angle, we want to reward those in society who do the most difficult “emotional work”. Anyone who has ever tried living with a member of the opposite sex knows that it is emotional work and that it is not always easy.
There are numerous ways in which gender makes for conflict in heterosexual relationships. In terms of happiness in heterosexual relationships, if there are differences, it is most often that the woman is less happy.
It is clear that one result of no-fault divorce has been the feminization of poverty in which women lose much of their socioeconomic status after a divorce, even though they are more often responsible for the care of the children. If we begin to treat same-sex lesbian marriages as the same as heterosexual ones, what are we really telling young women? Go ahead and marry a man because this is good for society (both of you will have a DNA relationship to the child and your relationship will be more stable, which is good for the child) but you will have to accept the risk of a greater likelihood of being unhappy and of being ruined financially if your unhappiness leads to divorce, not to mention all the gender-related or sexuality-related conflicts you will have to endure even if you do not divorce.
But, we will grant the same benefits and respect to other women who bypass all those risks and dangers by hooking up with another woman. Will not this make women who marry men look and feel a bit like fools?
And what about men?
Research is clear that gay men usually feel OK about sex outside a civil union or marriage, often by mutual consent. How often will a heterosexual married man get “mutual” consent from his wife to have an affair? Some recent research with lesbians has found that some of them look forward to marriage precisely because marriage would make having sex outside the marriage easier on the relationship. This is the exact opposite of what occurs for most heterosexual couples. That is, how many heterosexual women look forward to marriage so their husband can start having sex with other women or so they can start having sex with other men?
In other words, one cost of marriage for heterosexuals is sexual restriction, which may involve personal sacrifice. With same-sex marriage, that social norm will decline further in strength, in my estimation.
Thus, heterosexual men and women are doing what society calls for -- but we will be punishing them for it. It’s like telling a soldier: we need you to go and fight the enemy face-to-face 24 hours a day and to risk maiming and death. But we, in order to be “fair”, are going to grant the same respect, rank, promotions, or veterans benefits and privileges to soldiers who stayed home and worked only eight hours a day out of air conditioned buildings.
The challenge of proving the “harm”
The evidence, including my own research, suggests that same-sex couples are happier than opposite-sex couples. And why not? Sociology can only capture part of the spectrum of human happiness. If a survey defines it as fewer hassles, less conflict over gender-related issues or sexuality issues, more disposable income and less fretting about children, what would you expect?
But if we grant same-sex couples equality, we will create a grander inequality for the far larger proportion of society who accept the “challenges” (ie, the greater risks and costs) of living heterosexually while providing society with greater benefits in terms of greater stability and care for their own biologically-related children.
If you say “prove the harm”, I say, OK, how would you prove harm if all combat pay and decorations were eliminated in order to be “fair” and to create equality for non-combat soldiers? After all, some soldiers may not feel they were “born for” combat, may not feel attracted to it, may feel unsuited for it, yet they are soldiers. Surely they deserve the same respect, honor, and compensation?
If all benefits were “equalized”, and the military found it more difficult to get volunteers for battle, it could always be blamed on something else. If re-enlistment rates went down, it would be blamed on inadequate retention pay. The military could demand that all soldiers face combat. If the soldiers who were forced into combat against their will didn’t perform well, it could be blamed on bad leadership at the unit level.
I am not sure you could ever prove harm to the satisfaction of those who demanded the elimination of all differential pay and benefits for combat veterans versus non-combat veterans.
Proving the “harm” of same-sex marriage is similar. No matter what you find in the research, it will be denigrated and dismissed by those in favor of same-sex marriage. The reality is that US states are aligned on a sexual freedom continuum that includes a number of matters (sex before marriage, cohabitation, same-sex marriage, acceptance of divorce, etc.) related to the so-called Second Demographic Transition. Trying to separate the effects of same-sex marriage from the entire cluster of changes is like asking which bee of the five that stung you did the most damage. No matter what, the other four bees can almost always be blamed more than the fifth bee.
It is my opinion that for a social system to work optimally, everyone should play by the same rules, with a few exceptions (eg, disabilities). Marriage has traditionally meant sexual fidelity, at least in principle. It has meant two people of different genders working through gender conflicts. It has meant two people committing themselves to each other for a lifetime. It has meant having children that are biologically related to both parents or being supportive of others who have such children. It has meant raising children who are not ashamed of being a boy or a girl.
If we are to begin saying that sexual fidelity is not really all that important, that having children is not all that important, that accepting gender role conflicts is something to bypass if possible, that gender roles are not all that important for children, or that long-term relationship stability is not all that important, we are really saying this: people can pick and choose which rules to play by with the right to reject any rules, restrictions, or limits that they don’t like.
Allowing everyone to make up their own rules may sound like a wonderful freedom, but consider what would happen if football was played with no rules or no referees? What if the Geneva Conventions for warfare were handled that way (it’s up to each soldier to follow or not follow them, with no consequences either way)? What if children could choose what homework assignments to do or not do? Even those who are pro-gay recognize this principle latently when they criticize how some places allow same-sex marriage and others do not (ie, the rules/laws change from place to place and are not the same for everybody).
If folks want the same benefits of marriage, they should be willing to play by the same rules. Research tells us that this is not the case at present and logic suggests it may never be. If the rules do not matter any longer or if everyone can make up their own rules as they go along, the meaning of marriage changes substantially from what it has been traditionally.
- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/unpacking_the_slogans#sthash.ZutCXwtB.dpuf

A pioneer of gay liberation has made it clear that the real goal of gay marriage is an assault on religion - by Alistair Nicholas

In MercatorNet

Some months ago I somewhat reluctantly wrote on the subject of gay marriage. I argued at the time that the agenda of the gay lobby was not simply marriage equality but that the lobby (not individual gays) was preparing for an assault on religion. My concern has been borne out by an article by Dennis Altman, an internationally renowned academic and gay activist. In "Queer push for marriage", which appeared recently in the Australian Financial Review, Altman makes it clear that the real target for the gay lobby is religion.

The battle lines are drawn early in Altman's piece. He states unequivocally that the obstacle to marriage equality in Australia is the large number of Catholics in both of Australia's major Liberal and Labor political parties, who might stop legislation in favour of it even on a free (or conscience) vote in the Federal and State parliaments. Altman says: "In Australia, the combination of National Party MPs and the Catholic strength in both major parties might prevent legislation passing, even if the Liberals have a free vote."

Perhaps New South Wales' Premier Barry O'Farrell is being Machiavellian in allowing a conscience vote for his Liberal Party on the issue, knowing that it has little chance of passing through both houses of the State Parliament; and then, even if it did, that it would become subject to a High Court battle given the Federal Marriage Act which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. You've got to watch those Irish Catholics!

Sadly, I have to say that even as a Catholic I do not share Altman's faith in my co-religionist members of the Liberal and Labor parties. Like most modern day politicians they will lead from behind and do what the polls, and not necessarily the Pope, tell them to do.

But let's get back to Altman's piece. He interestingly starts out with an attack on the institution of marriage itself as a major reason to allow gay marriage. Altman says: 

"But this debate is only possible because of huge shifts that have taken place in the larger meaning of marriage over the past few decades. It has moved from being regarded as a lifetime commitment, sanctified by God, with the purpose of producing children, to a more relaxed commitment based on mutual love and respect, with the recognition that something like 40 per cent of marriages will end in divorce."

The argument means that if marriage is not what it used to be about, if traditional marriage is failing, let's open it up for gays as well. If this argument holds any water it should, by logical extension, also open up a debate on polygamy and even group marriage as legitimate forms of marriage that should be recognised by law. Indeed, given the high numbers of Muslims in contemporary Australian society, why not legalise polygyny? The argument is of course patently absurd: "traditional marriage is fractured so lets smash it and remake it as something else".

Wouldn't it be more logical to ask why 40 percent of marriages fail and to then look for solutions to the problems that exist. Otherwise we are likely to end up with all kinds of arrangements being allowed to pass as marriage because the concept of marriage has become meaningless.

But I digress. Back to Altman.

Altman then moves to an attack on the argument that gays having children are against the natural order because improvements in IVF technology and surrogacy have made it possible for them to do so. He even says that given the scrutiny a gay couple has to go through to have children and the financial burden they take on in doing that means they are likely to be better parents than heterosexual couples who may have not planned a pregnancy.

No evidence of the claim is presented. This is sophistry at its best. The natural order has been defeated by science so the natural order should stand aside? Take this to its logical conclusion and science will always trump nature and all ethical and moral considerations could be set aside. "Science is right" becomes the modern day "might is right" maxim. A flood-gate for abortion, euthanasia, eugenics and who knows what else could be opened because science makes them possible; indeed the horse has already bolted on abortion. Euthanasia is not far behind.

But Altman's real attack on religion comes when he says the case for gay marriage is "largely symbolic" because gay couples in Australia (and many other Western nations - the exception being the United States) already have full equal rights with heterosexual married couples. That is to say, gay couples in Australia have full access to all the social benefits that are provided to married and de facto heterosexual couples. That means there is no material need for marriage equality. There is no case on the grounds of material discrimination.

Strangely, Altman even argues against the need for gay marriage, saying "[t]here is sometimes an unpleasant self-indulgence to the glorification of marriage" and that he is "concerned by talk of monogamy from young men in love" when, he says, "available research" tells us they are unlikely to be monogamous.

Altman is actually not an advocate for gay marriage - or indeed any marriage. This old activist of the 1960s is actually against the institution of marriage itself. Indeed, Altman argues that "emotional fidelity is not the same as sexual fidelity" and claims that marriage discriminates against those who choose to live outside its bonds.

This has passed beyond mere sophistry; Altman has entered the realm of the truly absurd. If genius really is the ability to simultaneously hold two contradictory points of view, Altman should undoubtedly be initiated to the ranks of the Mensa Society.

But I suspect he is just another high-IQ moron. Nonetheless, his (and the gay lobby's) true agenda is exposed.

The real agenda for Altman is not marriage equality but rather what he sees as religious "bigotry". The gay lobby's marriage equality campaign is a campaign to force religions to fall silent on the issue of homosexuality. Altman says in no uncertain terms that "The exemptions from anti-discrimination laws given to churches to preach bigotry – and the existence of the school chaplaincy programs, which are sometimes run by fundamentalist churches – seem to me of greater concern [than marriage equality]."

No doubt individual gays hoping for a big wedding not part of the conspiracy. But that doesn't mean there isn't a conspiracy.

Let's not mince words: this is an affront on the three monotheistic religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - which see homosexuality as a sin. Ultimately the gay lobby would like them to be forced to stop promoting this view and to allow those actively engaging in homosexuality to be allowed into their places of worship. Next will be to force the three monotheistic religions to allow gays to marry in their churches, synagogues and mosques.

Altman's argument is wrapped up in concerns about school bullying and the high rate of suicide amongst young homosexuals. But this doesn't mean we need laws to force religions to fall silent on matters of critical importance to their faiths. Yes, bullying is wrong and no life should ever be lost because of it. Pass laws against bullying to protect individuals and their right to make moral choices, and enforce those laws more strictly to ensure bullying ceases. But we need also to protect the fundamental right of religions and the individuals who adhere to them to believe in the precepts of their faiths and to be able to preach those beliefs openly.

The real risk of course, the paradox of modern society, is that the argument for tolerance on a wide range of minority issues, such as homosexuality (yes, it is still only practiced by a minority), is leading to greater intolerance towards the majority. By shutting down the rights of religions and their followers we would actually become a less tolerant society. Religions and individuals who oppose certain beliefs and practices will become the persecuted - ironically, their right to freedom of speech would be sacrificed on the altar of tolerance.

(All this reminds me of an episode of the popular television comedy series 30 Rock in which the characters form a group called "National Association for Zero Intolerance" or "NAZI" to stop a range of perceived intolerances.)

When religious organisations and individuals are told to remain silent on certain aspects of their beliefs we will be living under a new form of totalitarianism. That ultimately is where the debate for gay marriage is headed.

If gay marriage is an inevitability, as I suspect it is, but only because it will be foisted upon us by the vociferous gay lobby and the acceptance of an apathetic majority, it is imperative that the rights of religions to promote their beliefs continue to be protected. Otherwise we are inching our way towards a world in which certain thoughts could be defined as crimes.

Some months ago I somewhat reluctantly wrote on the subject of gay marriage. I argued at the time that the agenda of the gay lobby was not simply marriage equality but that the lobby (not individual gays) was preparing for an assault on religion. My concern has been borne out by an article by Dennis Altman, an internationally renowned academic and gay activist. In "Queer push for marriage", which appeared recently in the Australian Financial Review, Altman makes it clear that the real target for the gay lobby is religion.
The battle lines are drawn early in Altman's piece. He states unequivocally that the obstacle to marriage equality in Australia is the large number of Catholics in both of Australia's major Liberal and Labor political parties, who might stop legislation in favour of it even on a free (or conscience) vote in the Federal and State parliaments. Altman says: "In Australia, the combination of National Party MPs and the Catholic strength in both major parties might prevent legislation passing, even if the Liberals have a free vote."
Perhaps New South Wales' Premier Barry O'Farrell is being Machiavellian in allowing a conscience vote for his Liberal Party on the issue, knowing that it has little chance of passing through both houses of the State Parliament; and then, even if it did, that it would become subject to a High Court battle given the Federal Marriage Act which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. You've got to watch those Irish Catholics!
Sadly, I have to say that even as a Catholic I do not share Altman's faith in my co-religionist members of the Liberal and Labor parties. Like most modern day politicians they will lead from behind and do what the polls, and not necessarily the Pope, tell them to do.
But let's get back to Altman's piece. He interestingly starts out with an attack on the institution of marriage itself as a major reason to allow gay marriage. Altman says:
"But this debate is only possible because of huge shifts that have taken place in the larger meaning of marriage over the past few decades. It has moved from being regarded as a lifetime commitment, sanctified by God, with the purpose of producing children, to a more relaxed commitment based on mutual love and respect, with the recognition that something like 40 per cent of marriages will end in divorce."
The argument means that if marriage is not what it used to be about, if traditional marriage is failing, let's open it up for gays as well. If this argument holds any water it should, by logical extension, also open up a debate on polygamy and even group marriage as legitimate forms of marriage that should be recognised by law. Indeed, given the high numbers of Muslims in contemporary Australian society, why not legalise polygyny? The argument is of course patently absurd: "traditional marriage is fractured so lets smash it and remake it as something else".
Wouldn't it be more logical to ask why 40 percent of marriages fail and to then look for solutions to the problems that exist. Otherwise we are likely to end up with all kinds of arrangements being allowed to pass as marriage because the concept of marriage has become meaningless.
But I digress. Back to Altman.
Altman then moves to an attack on the argument that gays having children are against the natural order because improvements in IVF technology and surrogacy have made it possible for them to do so. He even says that given the scrutiny a gay couple has to go through to have children and the financial burden they take on in doing that means they are likely to be better parents than heterosexual couples who may have not planned a pregnancy.
No evidence of the claim is presented. This is sophistry at its best. The natural order has been defeated by science so the natural order should stand aside? Take this to its logical conclusion and science will always trump nature and all ethical and moral considerations could be set aside. "Science is right" becomes the modern day "might is right" maxim. A flood-gate for abortion, euthanasia, eugenics and who knows what else could be opened because science makes them possible; indeed the horse has already bolted on abortion. Euthanasia is not far behind.
But Altman's real attack on religion comes when he says the case for gay marriage is "largely symbolic" because gay couples in Australia (and many other Western nations - the exception being the United States) already have full equal rights with heterosexual married couples. That is to say, gay couples in Australia have full access to all the social benefits that are provided to married and de facto heterosexual couples. That means there is no material need for marriage equality. There is no case on the grounds of material discrimination.
Strangely, Altman even argues against the need for gay marriage, saying "[t]here is sometimes an unpleasant self-indulgence to the glorification of marriage" and that he is "concerned by talk of monogamy from young men in love" when, he says, "available research" tells us they are unlikely to be monogamous.
Altman is actually not an advocate for gay marriage - or indeed any marriage. This old activist of the 1960s is actually against the institution of marriage itself. Indeed, Altman argues that "emotional fidelity is not the same as sexual fidelity" and claims that marriage discriminates against those who choose to live outside its bonds.
This has passed beyond mere sophistry; Altman has entered the realm of the truly absurd. If genius really is the ability to simultaneously hold two contradictory points of view, Altman should undoubtedly be initiated to the ranks of the Mensa Society.
But I suspect he is just another high-IQ moron. Nonetheless, his (and the gay lobby's) true agenda is exposed.
The real agenda for Altman is not marriage equality but rather what he sees as religious "bigotry". The gay lobby's marriage equality campaign is a campaign to force religions to fall silent on the issue of homosexuality. Altman says in no uncertain terms that "The exemptions from anti-discrimination laws given to churches to preach bigotry – and the existence of the school chaplaincy programs, which are sometimes run by fundamentalist churches – seem to me of greater concern [than marriage equality]."
No doubt individual gays hoping for a big wedding not part of the conspiracy. But that doesn't mean there isn't a conspiracy.
Let's not mince words: this is an affront on the three monotheistic religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - which see homosexuality as a sin. Ultimately the gay lobby would like them to be forced to stop promoting this view and to allow those actively engaging in homosexuality to be allowed into their places of worship. Next will be to force the three monotheistic religions to allow gays to marry in their churches, synagogues and mosques.
Altman's argument is wrapped up in concerns about school bullying and the high rate of suicide amongst young homosexuals. But this doesn't mean we need laws to force religions to fall silent on matters of critical importance to their faiths. Yes, bullying is wrong and no life should ever be lost because of it. Pass laws against bullying to protect individuals and their right to make moral choices, and enforce those laws more strictly to ensure bullying ceases. But we need also to protect the fundamental right of religions and the individuals who adhere to them to believe in the precepts of their faiths and to be able to preach those beliefs openly.
The real risk of course, the paradox of modern society, is that the argument for tolerance on a wide range of minority issues, such as homosexuality (yes, it is still only practiced by a minority), is leading to greater intolerance towards the majority. By shutting down the rights of religions and their followers we would actually become a less tolerant society. Religions and individuals who oppose certain beliefs and practices will become the persecuted - ironically, their right to freedom of speech would be sacrificed on the altar of tolerance.
(All this reminds me of an episode of the popular television comedy series 30 Rock in which the characters form a group called "National Association for Zero Intolerance" or "NAZI" to stop a range of perceived intolerances.)
When religious organisations and individuals are told to remain silent on certain aspects of their beliefs we will be living under a new form of totalitarianism. That ultimately is where the debate for gay marriage is headed.
If gay marriage is an inevitability, as I suspect it is, but only because it will be foisted upon us by the vociferous gay lobby and the acceptance of an apathetic majority, it is imperative that the rights of religions to promote their beliefs continue to be protected. Otherwise we are inching our way towards a world in which certain thoughts could be defined as crimes.
- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/how_redefining_marriage_threatens_freedom_of_speech#sthash.wdUqwABO.dpuf