Editors Display Ignorance on Knowledge of Familiy Stability

In one of their latest editorials on the liberal push to cirumvent the wish of Oregon's voters in regards to same sex marriages, the Fish Wrapper editors continue to push the lie that these bills would strenghen gay and lesbian families.

Most of the piece rehashes the testimony from the legislaitve hearings this past Monday on Senate Bill 2 and House Bill 2007. These bills would create special rights for homosexuals and also come as close as possible to creating gay marriage in spite of the passage of Measure 36 in 2004 by a large margin.

Nancy Frantz-Geddes of Salem, for instance, testified about the day her son struck his head on the edge of a coffee table. Realizing he needed stitches, she and her partner, Peggy, rushed him to the emergency room, only to be rebuffed by a nurse.

" Who is the mother here?" the nurse asked. "We calmly explained that Peggy was the biological mom and I was the adopted mom, to which the nurse replied, 'I'm sorry, but only one of you can go in with him.' " When further attempts to explain proved futile, Frantz-Geddes "tearfully acquiesced and sat down in the lobby . . ," she said. "(But) this experience was . . . completely unnecessary. I never again want to be denied the right to be with my children . . . in a time of need."

Kristin Carrico of Sunriver, a third-generation Republican and the wife of a retired rancher, testified about her son's state, too. An honor student who began to realize in his senior year that he was gay, he doesn't live in Oregon anymore. He lives in Wisconsin, a state that banned discrimination against gays and lesbians 25 years ago. Oregon should ban it, too.

"We would like him to be just as safe in Oregon as he is in Wisconsin. Someday we'd love it if he came back to Oregon to work here, but, as things stand, he wouldn't be protected," Carrico said. "He could have difficulty finding housing, obtaining a loan or receiving equal treatment in the workplace."

A couple paragraphs later, their (willful) ignorance comes shining through:

As the testimony this week showed, these two bills would work together to strengthen gay and lesbian families. Their enactment would also change the operating assumptions for such families. Although many would still be watchful, they'd at least feel that Oregon was looking out for them, too.

However, contrary to what the Fish Wrapper would like you to believe, homosexual families are some of the most unstalbe entities. As reported by the American College of Pediatricians:

Research data

Heterosexual parenting is the normative model upon which most comprehensive longitudinal research on childrearing has been based. Data on long-term outcomes for children placed in homosexual households are very limited and the available evidence reveals grave concerns. Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables.2,3,4 Childrearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in a home with two heterosexual parents versus a home with a single parent. 5,6,7,8,9 Therefore, the burden is on the proponents of homosexual parenting to prove that moving further away from the heterosexual parenting model is appropriate and safe for children.

Risks of Homosexual Lifestyle to Children

Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples. 10,11,12,13,14 Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years. 15,16,17 Homosexual men and women are reported to be inordinately promiscuous involving serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed "committed relationships." 18,19,20,21,22 Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness,23,24,25 substance abuse,26 suicidal tendencies,27,28 and shortened life spans.29 Although some would claim that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures were the practice is more widely accepted.30 Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. 31,32,33,34,35 Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.36

And as Chuck Colson points out, same sex marriage hurts children:

Because, David Blankenhorn responded, changing marriage to this extent would negate the very benefits it's supposed to bring. In fact, it's children who would be hurt most by such a step, because it's "a direct assault" on their rights. Even the problematic U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (which Blankenhorn supports) states that every child has, "as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents." Same-sex "marriage" negates this right. It requires, for a start, that someone outside the couple participate in the conception of the child. And two men need a surrogate mother. That person usually takes him or herself out of the picture. But whether that happens or not, the structure of the family is distorted and weakened. And so Blankenhorn called same-sex "marriage" an "attack on the notion of the biological parent."

Does that language sound too emphatic? Consider this: The bill that legalized same-sex "marriage" in Canada also included a provision that the term natural parent be taken out of federal law, to be replaced by the term legal parent.

Blankenhorn pointed out that rather than solidifying a family, same-sex "marriage" destabilizes it because it "de-links marriage and children." I'm not saying that same-sex "marriage" advocates were the first to do this; heterosexuals have certainly done their part. Our high rates of divorce and out- of-wedlock pregnancy are evidence of that. But same-sex "marriage" would drive us even further down that dead-end road.

I disagree with David Blankenhorn about some things, but here he hits the nail on the head. Marriage is not about giving social sanction to a loving relationship, as Jonathan Rauch argued. It's fundamentally about children. You cannot separate marriage from procreation, the central act of marriage. Attempting to do so is a sure way to hurt children -- and to destroy marriage itself.

It seems apparently obvious to me that the homosexual agenda and its drive for same-sex marriage isn't about children; it's all about the individual. What the individual wants is most important, regardless of the effects on children and society as a whole.

Two more great articles on gay marriage and the destabilizing effects on society as demonstrated in Scandiavia are "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia" and "No Nordic Bliss" by Stanley Kurtz.

It would be nice to see the Fish Wrapper editors realize how far off base they are when it comes to this issue, but like they've proved on a regular basis, they don't like to let the facts get in the way of their opinion.

 

User login







Syndicate

Syndicate content