and when the main arguments against same sex marriage are grounded in fundamentalism and religion, that is another sign that we should allow same sex marriage.
My internet connection is too slow to permit me the luxury of watching videos on the web, but the bottom line is this:
We cannot call a homosexual relationship a marriage without destroying the definition of the word, family.
And as soon as we do that, the cultural Marxist mission to destroy the family is accomplished.
Without the family to anchor its foundations, Western civilization cannot stand before the inexorable advance of abject, cradle-to-grave totalitarianism.
And that’s why they’re pushing this so hard.
That’s why they won’t accept a civil union that provides all the legal benefits they claim are at the root of their demands. They could have that today – in many places, they already do. But no. That’s not good enough for them.
They won’t rest until the very concept of the family is utterly destroyed.
It seems to me that you want to have your cake and eat it too.
You want the freedom and prosperity created by Western culture, without preserving the social and cultural traditions which stabilize the foundations of that culture.
You can’t have one without the other.
Xanthippa says:
I quite agree with you that we need to strenghten social and cultural traditions like the nuclear family in order to preserve our way of life.
Where I desagree with you is in the assertion that gay marriage undermines this: I rather think it strengthens the role of nuclear family in society and thus supports our Western way of life.
But that’s just my point: the real argument against calling a homosexual union a “marriage” is rooted in developmental psychology. Dogmatic religious opposition to it is a red herring, just like the crude sexual stereotypes propagated by feminism to make its opponents look intolerant and simple-minded.
A family consists of a man and his wife and their natural children. The degree to which the structure of a home differs from this is the degree to which it is not a family. It is the measure of its dysfunctionality as a family.
An infertile heterosexual couple and their adopted children are a fairly good approximation of a family – it often works rather well, so we can afford to call it a family. A single-parent home is already quite a poor approximation of a family – it generally works much less well, so it takes quite a stretch of the imagination to call it a family. But a homosexual union cannot be called a family by any stretch of the imagination.
The reason is very simple.
A boy learns to be a man by emulating his father, and a girl learns to be a woman by emulating her mother. Children learn about the proper relations between the sexes by internalizing their first-hand experience of the relations between their parents. Unless both parents are present and committed and psychologically normal for their respective sexes, this obviously cannot work very well.
This is why children who don’t grow up in stable home with both their father and their mother face serious developmental challenges, which many of them never overcome. And this leaves them with personality dysfunctions, which the totalitarian corporocratic state is all-too-proficient at exploiting to make docile and compliant slaves out of people born with the potential to be free.
And this is the real argument against expanding the meaning the word, marriage, to include homosexual unions.
It’s a pretty compelling argument – which is why it’s never mentioned in the mass media.
You should know by now that I don’t purvey junk science.
But okay, let’s see whose claims are agenda-driven and “based on theory rather than empirical data or evidence of any kind.” Mine, or those of the APA (American Psychological Association: the high priesthood of collectivist secular Edenism and leading apparatchiks of cultural Marxism).
Loren Marks of Louisiana State University carried out a careful and detailed meta-analysis of the 59 studies underpinning the APA’s position statement endorsing gay “parenting.” She shows that:
• 26 of the 59 studies on same-sex parenting had no heterosexual comparison groups.
• In comparison studies, single mothers were often used as the heterosexual comparison group.
• No comparison study had sufficient statistical power warrant conclusions.
• Definitive claims endorsed by the APA are not substantiated by the 59 studies.
In short, all of these studies are junk science. And that is putting it very, very mildly. The words, outright fraud, come to mind – and with good reason.
Abstract: In 2005, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued an official brief on lesbian and gay parenting. This brief included the assertion: “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents” (p. 15). The present article closely examines this assertion and the 59 published studies cited by the APA to support it. Seven central questions address: (1) homogeneous sampling, (2) absence of comparison groups, (3) comparison group characteristics, (4) contradictory data, (5) the limited scope of children’s outcomes studied, (6) paucity of long-term outcome data, and (7) lack of APA-urged statistical power. The conclusion is that strong assertions, including those made by the APA, were not empirically warranted. Recommendations for future research are offered.
So what can we conclude? Well, let’s look at a very well designed study, carried out by Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin, which clearly shows the exact opposite of what the APA would have you believe about gay “parenting.” Regnerus’ own description of the highlights of his paper are as follows:
• The New Family Structures Study collected data from nearly 3000 adults.
• I compare young adults who grew up with a lesbian mother or gay father.
• Differences exist between children of parents who have had same-sex relationships and those with married parents.
• This probability study suggests considerable diversity among same-sex parents.
Abstract: The New Family Structures Study (NFSS) is a social-science data-collection project that fielded a survey to a large, random sample of American young adults (ages 18–39) who were raised in different types of family arrangements. In this debut article of the NFSS, I compare how the young-adult children of a parent who has had a same-sex romantic relationship fare on 40 different social, emotional, and relational outcome variables when compared with six other family-of-origin types. The results reveal numerous, consistent differences, especially between the children of women who have had a lesbian relationship and those with still-married (heterosexual) biological parents. The results are typically robust in multivariate contexts as well, suggesting far greater diversity in lesbian-parent household experiences than convenience-sample studies of lesbian families have revealed. The NFSS proves to be an illuminating, versatile dataset that can assist family scholars in understanding the long reach of family structure and transitions.
All this is so equivocal that you can’t tell from reading it what he actually found, so lets look at Table 2 on page 761 of the paper, which uses the following abbreviations (among others):
IBF = grown children of Intact Biological Families
LM = grown children of Lesbian Mothers
GF = grown children of Gay Fathers
The patterns in the data are as obvious as they are alarming. In round numbers, we see for example that:
• IBF are 4 times more likely to marry than to cohabit, while LM and GF are only 3/2 times more likely to do so.
• LM and GF are both 6 times more likely than IBF to have been on welfare while growing up.
• GF and LM are 2 and 4 times more likely than IBF to be on welfare currently.
• GF and LM are 3 and 4 times more likely than IBF to be homosexual.
• GF and LM are 2 and 3 times more likely than IBF to cheat on their mates.
• LM and GF are 2 and 3 times more likely than IBF to have had a venereal disease.
• LM and GF are 2 and 6 times more likely than IBF to contemplate suicide.
• GF and LM are 3 and 12 times more likely than IBF to have been sexually abused as children.
So this is what Regnerus means when he blandly remarks that “differences exist.”
Just look at the magnitude of these effects!
Some people want to criminalize lifestyle choices that increase certain health risks by 10 or 20 percent. But here we see effects on the order of hundreds of percent – having a lesbian mother increases a child’s risk of sexual abuse by 1200 percent – and these same people call you a bigot if you say we shouldn’t condone this kind of thing.
Needless to say, Marks and Regnerus are being pilloried all over the web for spilling the beans about gay “parenting.” But the attacks thrown at them are the shrill emotional attacks of cultural Marxists who are frustrated by the impossibility of refuting their findings objectively. In a nutshell, those findings are:
Intact biological families are dramatically better than gay couples at parenting, and lesbians are by far the worst.
The facts are crystal clear and unambiguous, and gay activists know it. They aren’t stupid. On the contrary, they’re savvy enough to know that their best strategy is to shout down and demonize anyone who dares to speak the truth, because the core of the gay agenda is not about truth, fairness, or gay rights at all.
Gay rights are just an excuse to open yet another front in the on-going attack on the traditional family, which is the cornerstone of Western civilization.
So don’t let their rhetoric take your eye off the ball:
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 
June 22, 2013 at 00:40
i agree with him fully
and when the main arguments against same sex marriage are grounded in fundamentalism and religion, that is another sign that we should allow same sex marriage.
June 22, 2013 at 02:22
Xanthippa:
My internet connection is too slow to permit me the luxury of watching videos on the web, but the bottom line is this:
We cannot call a homosexual relationship a marriage without destroying the definition of the word, family.
And as soon as we do that, the cultural Marxist mission to destroy the family is accomplished.
Without the family to anchor its foundations, Western civilization cannot stand before the inexorable advance of abject, cradle-to-grave totalitarianism.
And that’s why they’re pushing this so hard.
That’s why they won’t accept a civil union that provides all the legal benefits they claim are at the root of their demands. They could have that today – in many places, they already do. But no. That’s not good enough for them.
They won’t rest until the very concept of the family is utterly destroyed.
The goal is to bring down the West.
All else is just the means to that end.
Xanthippa says:
I’m araid we’ll have to disagree on this one.
June 22, 2013 at 16:58
Xanthippa:
It seems to me that you want to have your cake and eat it too.
You want the freedom and prosperity created by Western culture, without preserving the social and cultural traditions which stabilize the foundations of that culture.
You can’t have one without the other.
Xanthippa says:
I quite agree with you that we need to strenghten social and cultural traditions like the nuclear family in order to preserve our way of life.
Where I desagree with you is in the assertion that gay marriage undermines this: I rather think it strengthens the role of nuclear family in society and thus supports our Western way of life.
June 22, 2013 at 17:57
Then my reply to Juggernaut below should be addressed to you, too.
Xanthippa says:
So, as an atypical female, I should also be denied the right to marriage?
June 23, 2013 at 14:17
Actually, Xanthippa, you strike me as a perfectly typical female in all ways but one: you are uncommonly rational.
And the people who consider that a flaw are the ones whose agenda you are defending.
June 23, 2013 at 17:01
Xanthippa, there’s only so much rope to give. There’s a line between respectable difference of opinion and straight quackery.
June 22, 2013 at 17:53
Juggernaut:
But that’s just my point: the real argument against calling a homosexual union a “marriage” is rooted in developmental psychology. Dogmatic religious opposition to it is a red herring, just like the crude sexual stereotypes propagated by feminism to make its opponents look intolerant and simple-minded.
A family consists of a man and his wife and their natural children. The degree to which the structure of a home differs from this is the degree to which it is not a family. It is the measure of its dysfunctionality as a family.
An infertile heterosexual couple and their adopted children are a fairly good approximation of a family – it often works rather well, so we can afford to call it a family. A single-parent home is already quite a poor approximation of a family – it generally works much less well, so it takes quite a stretch of the imagination to call it a family. But a homosexual union cannot be called a family by any stretch of the imagination.
The reason is very simple.
A boy learns to be a man by emulating his father, and a girl learns to be a woman by emulating her mother. Children learn about the proper relations between the sexes by internalizing their first-hand experience of the relations between their parents. Unless both parents are present and committed and psychologically normal for their respective sexes, this obviously cannot work very well.
This is why children who don’t grow up in stable home with both their father and their mother face serious developmental challenges, which many of them never overcome. And this leaves them with personality dysfunctions, which the totalitarian corporocratic state is all-too-proficient at exploiting to make docile and compliant slaves out of people born with the potential to be free.
And this is the real argument against expanding the meaning the word, marriage, to include homosexual unions.
It’s a pretty compelling argument – which is why it’s never mentioned in the mass media.
June 23, 2013 at 17:00
The problem is that your grand statements are based on theory rather than empirical data or evidence of any kind.
June 24, 2013 at 04:37
Juggernaut:
You should know by now that I don’t purvey junk science.
But okay, let’s see whose claims are agenda-driven and “based on theory rather than empirical data or evidence of any kind.” Mine, or those of the APA (American Psychological Association: the high priesthood of collectivist secular Edenism and leading apparatchiks of cultural Marxism).
Loren Marks of Louisiana State University carried out a careful and detailed meta-analysis of the 59 studies underpinning the APA’s position statement endorsing gay “parenting.” She shows that:
• 26 of the 59 studies on same-sex parenting had no heterosexual comparison groups.
• In comparison studies, single mothers were often used as the heterosexual comparison group.
• No comparison study had sufficient statistical power warrant conclusions.
• Definitive claims endorsed by the APA are not substantiated by the 59 studies.
In short, all of these studies are junk science. And that is putting it very, very mildly. The words, outright fraud, come to mind – and with good reason.
The full citation is:
Marks, L, 2012: Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting. Social Science Research, 41(4):735-751.
Abstract: In 2005, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued an official brief on lesbian and gay parenting. This brief included the assertion: “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents” (p. 15). The present article closely examines this assertion and the 59 published studies cited by the APA to support it. Seven central questions address: (1) homogeneous sampling, (2) absence of comparison groups, (3) comparison group characteristics, (4) contradictory data, (5) the limited scope of children’s outcomes studied, (6) paucity of long-term outcome data, and (7) lack of APA-urged statistical power. The conclusion is that strong assertions, including those made by the APA, were not empirically warranted. Recommendations for future research are offered.
So what can we conclude? Well, let’s look at a very well designed study, carried out by Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin, which clearly shows the exact opposite of what the APA would have you believe about gay “parenting.” Regnerus’ own description of the highlights of his paper are as follows:
• The New Family Structures Study collected data from nearly 3000 adults.
• I compare young adults who grew up with a lesbian mother or gay father.
• Differences exist between children of parents who have had same-sex relationships and those with married parents.
• This probability study suggests considerable diversity among same-sex parents.
The full citation is:
Regnerus, M, 2012: How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study. Social Science Research, 41(4):752-770.
Abstract: The New Family Structures Study (NFSS) is a social-science data-collection project that fielded a survey to a large, random sample of American young adults (ages 18–39) who were raised in different types of family arrangements. In this debut article of the NFSS, I compare how the young-adult children of a parent who has had a same-sex romantic relationship fare on 40 different social, emotional, and relational outcome variables when compared with six other family-of-origin types. The results reveal numerous, consistent differences, especially between the children of women who have had a lesbian relationship and those with still-married (heterosexual) biological parents. The results are typically robust in multivariate contexts as well, suggesting far greater diversity in lesbian-parent household experiences than convenience-sample studies of lesbian families have revealed. The NFSS proves to be an illuminating, versatile dataset that can assist family scholars in understanding the long reach of family structure and transitions.
All this is so equivocal that you can’t tell from reading it what he actually found, so lets look at Table 2 on page 761 of the paper, which uses the following abbreviations (among others):
IBF = grown children of Intact Biological Families
LM = grown children of Lesbian Mothers
GF = grown children of Gay Fathers
The patterns in the data are as obvious as they are alarming. In round numbers, we see for example that:
• IBF are 4 times more likely to marry than to cohabit, while LM and GF are only 3/2 times more likely to do so.
• LM and GF are both 6 times more likely than IBF to have been on welfare while growing up.
• GF and LM are 2 and 4 times more likely than IBF to be on welfare currently.
• GF and LM are 3 and 4 times more likely than IBF to be homosexual.
• GF and LM are 2 and 3 times more likely than IBF to cheat on their mates.
• LM and GF are 2 and 3 times more likely than IBF to have had a venereal disease.
• LM and GF are 2 and 6 times more likely than IBF to contemplate suicide.
• GF and LM are 3 and 12 times more likely than IBF to have been sexually abused as children.
So this is what Regnerus means when he blandly remarks that “differences exist.”
Just look at the magnitude of these effects!
Some people want to criminalize lifestyle choices that increase certain health risks by 10 or 20 percent. But here we see effects on the order of hundreds of percent – having a lesbian mother increases a child’s risk of sexual abuse by 1200 percent – and these same people call you a bigot if you say we shouldn’t condone this kind of thing.
Needless to say, Marks and Regnerus are being pilloried all over the web for spilling the beans about gay “parenting.” But the attacks thrown at them are the shrill emotional attacks of cultural Marxists who are frustrated by the impossibility of refuting their findings objectively. In a nutshell, those findings are:
Intact biological families are dramatically better than gay couples at parenting, and lesbians are by far the worst.
The facts are crystal clear and unambiguous, and gay activists know it. They aren’t stupid. On the contrary, they’re savvy enough to know that their best strategy is to shout down and demonize anyone who dares to speak the truth, because the core of the gay agenda is not about truth, fairness, or gay rights at all.
Gay rights are just an excuse to open yet another front in the on-going attack on the traditional family, which is the cornerstone of Western civilization.
So don’t let their rhetoric take your eye off the ball:
The goal is to bring down the West.
All else is just the means to that end.
June 24, 2013 at 16:32
[…] XANTHIPPA– “A Professor’s Argument for Same-Sex Marriage”; Daniel Hannan: Immigration policy has […]