|
|
|
Gender-neutral marriage and children
Gender-neutral marriage and children, i.e. how children's human rights are trampled on when they are denied the right to their biological parents - using as a reason human rights and equality of adults
This article discusses gender-neutral marriage and the influence of family structure on children. Those who support gender neutral-marriage and stand for sexual freedom in society, rarely look at things from the perspective of children. They do not take into account the impact that adults’ choices and legislation have on children. These people only talk about equality, human rights and social inequality, but they forget that children should also have human rights. They should have the right from birth to both of their biological parents. It is problematic if this is not granted. Fatherlessness and motherlessness are considered normal and desirable. The children are then expected to adapt to the fact that this basic right has been taken away from them and to even be grateful for it. It is also typical for this topic to try to shift the discussion about children to the notion that opposition to gender-neutral marriage represents homophobia and hatred towards homosexuals. People who claim this think they know and feel the inner thinking and feelings of a person who disagrees with their views. They don't take into account that you can disagree on things only on the basis of the facts, but still not hate anyone. Proponents of gender-neutral marriage also fail to take into account that many homosexuals themselves oppose this issue. They see that it violates the child's right to father and mother. The atheist homosexual Bongibault has stated in an interview (Wendy Wright, French Homosexuals Join Demonstration Against Gay Marriage):
Why do people support gender-nEutral marriage? When trying to find out what kind of perception people have about homosexuality - is it an innate quality or is it influenced by certain background factors and the person's own reaction to them - people usually lean towards the first option. This thing is generally regarded as an innate inclination The innateness of homosexuality is also appealed to by many so-called representatives of the Christian gay movement (here in Finland, for example, Yhteys-movement and Tulkaa kaikki-movement). Liisa Tuovinen, the leader of the Yhteys-movement, brought up this general perception in a TV discussion in 2002:
After all, Paul has no concept of homosexuality, which is such an innate human characteristic that it cannot be changed. (2)
When homosexuality is understood as an innate characteristic, it is surely also one of the biggest reasons why gender-neutral marriage and the homosexual lifestyle are viewed positively in today's society. It is thought that if it's a congenital characteristic like skin color or left-handedness, then isn't it right to defend the homosexual lifestyle and people who have such a characteristic? Isn't it right to support people in their sexual choices? But what is the truth of the matter? Many homosexuals themselves deny that it is innate. Some may argue that it's innate, but many admit that same-sex sexual seduction and circumstances played a role in the birth of their tendencies. These were common concepts also in psychology a few decades ago. So it's a similar thing to bitterness or why criminals usually come from certain kinds of circumstances. No one can choose the circumstances of their upbringing and what has been done to them, but a person can choose for himself whether he wants to forgive, whether he will become a criminal or practice homosexuality. He may be tempted to do these things, but to some extent he can choose how he wants to live:
I read an interesting study by an expert: it was a survey to find out how many actively homosexual people believed they were born that way. Eighty-five percent of the interviewees were of the opinion that their homosexuality was a learned way of behaving caused by destructive influence early on in their home and enticement by another person. Nowadays, my first question when meeting with a homosexual is usually, “Who gave you the inspiration for it?” All of them can answer me. I will ask then, “What would have happened to you and your sexuality if you hadn’t met your uncle, or if your cousin had not come into your life? Or without your stepfather? What do you think would have happened?” This is when the bells start to toll. They say, “Maybe, maybe, maybe.” (3)
Ole does not believe, however, that there is some kind of a "homosexual gene". He believes that the causes of homosexual feelings are more complex, and he mentions, for instance, that he knows many pairs of identical twins of which only one of the pair is homosexual. Ole believes that many factors contributed to his behaviour, such as his complex and poor relationship with his father when he was a child. Ole does not hold back when telling about his relationship with his father as a child. He felt that his father was never there and he feared his father. The father sometimes had a raging fit, and Ole felt a few times that his father intentionally humiliated him in public. Ole says bluntly that he hated his father. (4)
Harri is interested in the discussion about homosexuality in the media and studies about homosexuality. He is convinced that homosexuality has very little to do with congenital factors. He bases this view on, for instance, the fact that it is often easy to find out why people have homosexual inclinations. They have usually been subjected to sexual violence or have a difficult relationship with their parents or peers. "This has convinced me that it is not first and foremost about genes. However, I don't think that it is impossible for some people to have some genes that make them more susceptible to homosexual inclinations," Harri says. (5)
In her case, Tepi believes that homosexuality is due to the fact that she has some kind of emotional deficit that she is trying to fill. Tepi says she was afraid of her father as a child and still has "such a fear of men". Tepi says she is looking for a mother among women. Although Tepi thinks about the reasons for her lesbianism, she also says about her crush on women: "As it has gone kind of shockingly naturally, I've sometimes really wondered how it can go that way." On the other hand, she believes that there is a reason for this, too. Tepi does not believe that homosexuality is due to genes or that a person can be gay or lesbian from birth. In her opinion, a person grows up gay or lesbian, even without any special disorders. (6)
Of course, I, like many gay people, wonder where homosexuality comes from. I believe that a child's personality is formed during the first three years of life, including sexually. This is influenced by both the environment and human biology. I do not believe at all that homosexuality is hereditary. For some of my relatives, my homosexuality is hard precisely because they fear its heritability. (7)
Is homosexuality caused by genes? As noted, the usual standard explanation for homosexuality now is that it is congenital and caused by genes, or hormones excreted during pregnancy. People think that homosexuality is mainly caused by biological factors. However, this explanation is not supported by studies on twins. Identical twins have exactly the same genes and the same environment in the womb, yet only one of them can be interested in their own gender. If homosexuality were caused by genes this should not be the case. The following quote is from a large study on the subject, which was conducted in Canada and involved about 20,000 subjects. It shows that genes and heredity are not a decisive factor in the origin of homosexuality.
A study on twins in Canada showed that social factors are more important than genes (…) The research results show that genes do not have any major significance. If one of a pair of identical twins was homosexual, there was a 6.7% probability that the other twin was also interested in people of the same sex. The percentage for non-identical twins was 7.2% and for regular siblings 5.5%. These results strongly disagree with the above-mentioned genetic model for homosexuality. The environment in which twins grow inside the uterus of their mother is exactly the same for both twins in terms of hormones, and thus the results obtained by Bearman and Brucker disprove the theory that an imbalance in the hormones of the mother during pregnancy causes homosexuality. (...) Previous twin studies had obtained their subjects at clinics or through homosexual organisations, or otherwise had a limited sample. Bearman and Brucker state that their study is the most reliable one because it was based on a random sampling from a youth study including the entire nation. There were around 20,000 test subjects! Furthermore, the researchers did not rely on what one of a pair of twins said about the twin's sexual orientation: Instead, they went to the other twin and asked them about it. (8)
Homosexuality researchers generally do not believe in the innate nature of homosexuality. Olli Stålström, a founding member of the Finnish Seta movement, brought this matter up in his dissertation Homoseksuaalisuuden sairausleiman loppu (The end to stigmatizing homosexuality as an illness, 1997). He stated that homosexuality researchers have not supported the "I was born gay" theory for a long time. He referred to two scientific conferences attended by hundreds of scientists:
Two scientific conferences in December 1987 can be seen as a critical point in history … involving 100 homosexuality researchers from 22 different countries in 100 working groups… The conferences were also unanimous that it is not justified to substitute the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder with theories of innate nature. It was seen necessary to generally reject the essential view of homosexuality, according to which homosexuality possesses an essence independent from time and culture that has a certain causation. (p. 299-300)
Feral children. One indication of how much sexuality is related to circumstances and environmental factors are small children abandoned to live with animals. They have absolutely no sexual interest. This shows that human sexuality is also influenced by social factors. Biology is not the only determining factor. Researcher of developmental psychology and an assistant professor of psychology, Risto Vuorinen, tells in his book Minän synty ja kehitys [Birth and development of self] (1997) about these abandoned little children, so-called feral children, raised by animals. If sexuality were only determined by genes, there would not be such cases:
Asexuality of feral children is a crucial discovery. Despite their physical maturity, they do not show any sexual interest... There seems to be an early critical period for the development of sexuality.
Many proponents of gender-neutral marriage have themselves admitted directly that the innateness argument is not true or well-founded. One of them is John Corvino, who doesn't believe that homosexuality is innate feature. He has stated: "But a bad argument is a bad argument, no matter how pleasant - and true - conclusions might be drawn from it" (9) Research shows that sexual identity can also change to some extent with age, but most often in the usual heterosexual direction. For some young people, their gender identity may still be unclear, but with age, most of them will find a normal heterosexual identity:
A large-scale American study published in 2007 on the changing sexual identity of 16-22-year-olds showed that homosexual or bisexual orientation is 25 times more likely to change to heterosexual within a year than vice versa. For most teenagers, homosexual feelings recede with age. About 70 percent of 17-year-old boys who expressed unilateral homosexual interest expressed unilateral heterosexuality at the age of 22. (Savin-Williams & Ream 2007: 385 pp.) (10)
IS THE TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE LAW DISCRIMINATORY? One argument for gender-neutral marriage has been that the traditional marriage law is discriminatory. That's why supporters of gender-neutral marriage talk about equality and the fight against discrimination, when they defend their opinions. The media might also put forth beautifully coated messages about human rights and equality.
The right to marriage for all adults and changing the meaning of marriage. When talking about discrimination in connection with the traditional marriage law, it must be stated that all adults have the right to marriage. There is no exception here. Any adult man or woman can enter into marriage with the opposite sex. The traditional marriage law is thus already equal and does not discriminate against anyone. To say otherwise is contrary to the facts. Instead, the effort to extend marriage to same-sex couples also changes the meaning of marriage. The word marriage takes on a new meaning that it didn't have before. It's like arguing that, for example, a normal employment relationship between an employer and an employee means marriage, or that a bicycle and an airplane are cars, even if that's not the case. The word, which for centuries in human history has been understood to mean only the relationship between a man and a wife, thus changes in meaning to a different one through the gender-neutral concept of marriage. It changes a practice that has prevailed in all major cultures for thousands of years.
Other forms of affection. Saying that a gender-neutral marriage law will eliminate inequality and discrimination is a bad argument because there are other types of relationships. Because if a homosexual relationship is called a marriage, how can one justify the exclusion of other types of relationships from the same legislation? Why should only the homosexual minority be included in the marriage legislation? If we follow the same logic with which people are now trying to defend this issue, the following types of relationships should also be included in the scope of the legislation. If they are excluded, it is, according to the same logic, discrimination and support for inequality. Such results are reached if we follow the assumptions of the supporters of gender-neutral marriage and when we change the meaning of the word marriage:
• Relationship between mother and daughter, as they live in the same household
• Man, who lives with his dog
• Polygamy relationships
• Two students that live in the same dorm
• Incest relationships are also one form. Even proponents of gay marriage generally do not approve of such relationships because they perceive them as morally wrong. However, those who have a negative attitude towards gender-neutral marriage can reject it for the same reason. They may consider it morally wrong.
Professor, Anto Leikola, wrote about this issue in Yliopisto [University] magazine (8 / 1996) with the title Olisiko rakkauskin rekisteröitävä? [Should love be registered as well?]. He said that by following the same logic, it is inconsistent to limit the issue to homosexuals only. Why should only they be included in the scope of marriage law, when there are many other kinds of relationships deviating from the norm?
What if two siblings that are very attached to each other, want to own an apartment together and more, and even adopt a joint child? Why should it be harder for them than homosexuals? Is it because there is love between the latter, but not between the previous, or between else just friends? …All in all, the registration of a partnership is a social event …If such an opportunity is given to persons of the same sex, I still do not understand why it should be limited to homosexuals. Or do we think that all people of the same sex, who live together and are attached to each other, are homosexuals? Or do we consider that homosexuality does not have to have anything to do with sexuality... If we consider that it is desirable to register homosexual relationships, but not others, then the fact that it is a matter of registering a sexual orientation, no more and no less, does not get us anywhere, and in my opinion, it does not belong to society.
Most homosexuals do not seek marriage. When gender-neutral marriage has been pursued, one of the main points has been the fight against discrimination and inequality. It has been thought that gender-neutral marriage, where homosexual couples can marry each other, will eliminate discrimination. The fact is, however, that in those countries where homosexual marriage has been in force for a long time, only a few have wanted to get married. In the Netherlands, same-sex marriage has been valid for ten years, but only 20% of homosexual couples get married. Relative to individuals, the number is even lower. According to some estimates, only 8% of homosexual individuals enter into marriage. In practice, the numbers show that only a small minority of homosexuals have been interested in getting married. Instead, the great majority of them have not wanted (according to the supporters' own way of thinking) to experience equality and freedom from discrimination.
STATION OF CHILDREN. As stated, gender-neutral marriage is justified from the point of view of equality and as a human rights issue. It has been explained that the acceptance of this matter would remove the unfairness of the legislation. However, this topic has only been examined from the perspective of adults and children have been forgotten. The gender-neutral marriage law is indeed a human rights issue, but the opposite of what is implied: it means a violation of children's human rights. Because in those cases where homosexual couples intend to have children (it is possible, for example, through sperm banks and womb rental or that one of the homosexuals has been in a temporary heterosexual relationship), it means separating the child from its biological father or mother since birth simply because adults consider gender-neutral marriage to be their right. The gender-neutral marriage law thus discriminates against children at the expense of adults. The freedoms of adults are placed before the basic rights of children. There are of course situations where a child has to grow up without a father or a mother, but it is a different matter to deliberately make a child fatherless or motherless just to fulfill the wishes of adults. This is what happens in a gender-neutral marriage where children are obtained. In France, many homosexuals themselves have taken a stand on the matter. They see that the gender-neutral marriage law violates the child's right to a father and mother. This is why they reject gender-neutral marriage:
Jean-Pierre Delaume-Myard: Am I a homosexual homophobe… I am against gender neutral marriage, because I defend a child’s right to have a father and a mother. (11)
Jean-Marc Veyron la Croix: Everyone has their limitations: the fact that I don't have a child and that I miss a child does not give me the right to take the love of a mother from a child. (12)
Hervé Jourdan: A child is a fruit of love and he or she must stay as the fruit of love. (13)
Having children. When it comes to heterosexual relationships, they have one big difference compared to same-sex relationships: only heterosexual relationships can have children, the latter cannot. This is also one of the biggest reasons why a husband and wife marriage is the best starting point for children. It offers children the opportunity to grow up under the care of their biological father and mother from the start. The problem with homosexual relationships, on the other hand, is that if children are obtained through temporary heterosexual relationships or through artificial methods such as womb rental or sperm banks, it leaves the child either fatherless or motherless. He/she is missing at least one of his/her biological parents at home, with whom he could grow up. The child has to live without his/her other biological parent from the beginning because of the adults' choices. Those who themselves grew up in a homosexual family have criticized the practice of depriving a child of the right to a father or mother in this way; by appealing to equality between adults. They are deprived of the right to either of their parents. Jean-Dominique Bunel, who grew up with his lesbian mother and her female partner, tells how he experienced it. He suffered from the lack of a father. Elsewhere, he also says that if gender-neutral marriage had already been in effect when he was growing up, he would have sued the state, because it enabled the violation of his child's rights:
The comment below also addresses this issue. Absence of a father or a mother is the reason why children find growing up in a homosexual environment difficult. It is not a question of whether a singular homosexual parent is inadequate at parenting, but rather a matter of purposefully depriving a child from the presence of his/her other biological parent from birth:
Robert Oscar Lopez (2012) criticizes the rhetoric of homophobia as prejudiced and narrow-minded, because it also labels people like him as homophobic, who grew up in a lesbian couple's home, lived a large part of their lives in a homosexual culture, but who still oppose gender-neutral marriage because they feel it violates the rights of the child to father and mother. According to Lopez, it is difficult to be labeled as homophobic just because he openly says that he experienced the lack of a father as difficult while growing up in the home of his mother and her female partner. "Whether a same-sex couple seeks to replicate the model of heterosexual parenting through surrogacy, artificial insemination, divorce, or commercialized adoption, they are taking many moral risks. Children, who find themselves in the midst of these moral risks, are well aware of their parents' role in creating a stressful and emotionally complex life that separates them from cultural traditions such as Father's and Mother's Day. The position of children is made difficult, when they are called 'homophobic' simply because they suffer from – and admit it – the natural stress imposed on them by their parents. (Lopez 2013.) (15)
When children are obtained through artificial methods such as womb rental and sperm banks, we have to face numerous ethical problems. The problem with womb renting is that the mother has to abandon the child she is carrying. It is set as a goal in uterine rental. She is expected to suppress her feelings for the child and is paid for it. She sells her rights to a child she may never see again. However, for many this might have been too heavy because of their maternal instinct, which is what has led them to want to terminate the surrogacy contract. These women have understood that they love the child inside of them, which has made them change their minds. In addition, renting a womb is problematic for children. Because when the mother gives up her right to the child, the child may experience it as abandonment. Questions may arise for him, why his mother sold him for money and did not care. Among others, Alana Newman's website AnonymousUS.org tells about the experiences and feelings of such children. Frank Litgvoet, who lives in a homosexual relationship, tells honestly about a similar case. He talks about his adopted children who missed their mother. It was difficult and painful for the children to understand why the mother left her children in the first place:
The situation of a “motherless” child in an open adoption is not as simple as it may appear, because it involves the birthing mother, who comes into the child’s life and then leaves. And when the mother is not physically present, she is still, as we know from the stories of many adopted children who have reached adulthood, present in dreams, images, longing, and worry. Mother's arrival in our children's lives is usually a wonderful experience. It is harder for children when a mother leaves, not only because it is sad to say goodbye to a beloved adult, but also because it raises the difficult and painful question of why the mother left her child in the first place. (16)
What about the ethics of sperm banks and fertilization treatments? They are based on the fact that men have voluntarily donated their sperm for insemination, so these men will certainly not have to suffer the same difficult feelings that can occur with uterus rental. However, the problem with fertility treatments is that they burden children with the burden of fatherlessness. Artificially produced children can feel very difficult if the mother has deliberately put them in a state where they cannot know and be in contact with their father. Tapio Puolimatka describes Yale University psychiatrist Kyle Pruett's research on the subject (Kyle Pruett: Fatherneed, New York, Broadway, 2000). It is difficult for children to live in a kind of intermediate state without a relationship with their biological father:
Yale University psychiatrist Kyle Pruett (2000: 207) concludes based on his research that children born as a result of artificial insemination and raised without a father have an insatiable "hunger for the permanent presence of their father". His research aligns with studies of divorce and single parenthood that highlight a similar lack of fatherhood. Pruett's research also highlights that children born as a result of artificial insemination, who have no information about their father, have deep and disturbing questions about their biological origins and the family from which they are biologically descended. These children do not know their father or their father's family, and it is repugnant to them to live in a kind of in-between state without a relationship with their biological father (Pruett 2000:204-208) (17)
Alana Newman continues on the same topic. She herself was born by artificial insemination, which used sperm from an anonymous donor. She strongly opposes the practice where a child is deprived of the opportunity to establish a relationship with her/his own biological parents and grow up in their care. As a result of her own experiences, she suffered from identity problems and hatred towards the opposite sex. In her written testimony to the California Legislature, she wrote on the subject:
… I suffered from identity issues that undermined my mental balance, mistrust and hatred towards the opposite sex, feelings of being objectified – as if I existed only as someone else's plaything. I felt as if I was a scientific experiment. (18)
The importance of parents to children. Television programs and newspaper articles often talk about how children want to find the biological parent they have never met and who has disappeared from their lives. They have a longing to find their own roots and to meet the biological father or mother who is missing from them. This has become more and more common nowadays, e.g. due to increased divorce rates. From the child's point of view, the fact that both biological parents are there and care about each other is essential. This also comes out in numerous practical life observations. Those children whose relationship with their parents has been broken, e.g. as a result of alcohol, violence or an ordinary divorce, run into many problems in their lives that are rare for children who grew up in intact families. A small practical example points to this. It shows how especially fatherlessness, the lack of a father at home, is a modern problem:
When I was speaking at a certain men's camp in Hume Lake in California, I mentioned that the average father spends only three minutes of quality time with his child a day. After the meeting, one man questioned my information. He scolded, "You preachers only say things. According to the latest research, the average father doesn't spend even three minutes daily with his children, but 35 seconds." I believe him because he worked as a school inspector in central California. Actually, he gave me another startling statistic. In a certain school district in California there were 483 students in special education. None of those students had a father at home. In a certain area on the outskirts of Seattle, 61% of children live without a father. The absence of a father is a curse nowadays. (19)
How does this relate to the topic discussed? In short, the presence of both biological parents, the parents' love for each other and, of course, for the child is important for the child's well-being and development. There is plenty of research that shows that a child grows and develops best if he/she is allowed to be with his/her own biological parents in a family with a low level of conflict. If the comparison point is children, who have experienced parental divorce or single-parent families, new families and cohabiting relationships, they have been found to be worse alternatives in terms of children's development. In homosexual relationships, the problem is even greater (if children are obtained through temporary heterosexual relationships or through artificial methods), because in them the child is separated from at least one parent from the beginning of his/her life. It is certainly not a good option for children, as already stated above. A few comments show how important it is to have both biological parents in the family. A person who is planning to divorce his/her spouse should think twice. Of course, no parent is perfect, and sometimes living apart can be necessary due to, for example, violence. However, for the children, the best option is for the parents to come to terms with each other and learn to accept each other:
Research clearly shows that the structure of the family matters for children and that they are best supported by a family structure, that has two biological parents in marriage leading the family, and that the parents' level of conflict is low. Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in blended or cohabiting families are at greater risk of developing in a bad direction... That is why it is important, for the child, to promote strong and stable marriages between biological parents. (21)
If we were asked to design a system to ensure all children’s basic needs are being taken care of, we would probably end up somewhere, what is similar to the ideal of having two parents. In theory, this kind of plan does not only ensure that the children get two adult’s time and resources, it also provides a controlling and balancing system, which promotes high-class parenthood. Both parent’s biological relationship with the child increases the probability that the parents are able to identify themselves with the child and are ready to make sacrifices for the child. It also decreases the probability of the parents exploiting the child. (22)
It has been cogently showcased that children do not flourish, despite good physical care if they are being held in impersonal institutions, and that separation from the mother – especially during certain periods – is very damaging to the child. Typical implications of institution care are mental retardation, indifference, regressing and even death, when a sufficient surrogate mother is not available. (23)
As stated, the importance of both parents in children's lives has been found to be vital. This is proven by practical experience and numerous studies. A single parent can be exemplary in their role as a parent, but that does not replace the missing parent of the opposite sex. According to research, children who grew up in broken families (single-parent families, new families...) have more of the following types of problems. They demonstrate how important the loving presence of both biological parents is:
• Education level and school graduation rate are lower
• Boys who grew up without a father are more often driven to the path of violence and crime
• Emotional disorders, depression and suicide attempts are more common in children who do not have both parents in the family
• The use of drugs and alcohol is more common
• Teenage pregnancies and experiencing sexual abuse are more common
How do children raised by homosexual couples rank in this setting? In short, they have the same problems as other children who come from broken family relationships. The following table, related to the Australian Sotirios Sarantokis' research on the subject (22), gives some indication of the subject. The study he prepared in 1996 was the largest study comparing children's developmental results until the year 2000. The study took into account parents' own assessments, school results and teachers' assessments of children's development:
Another similar study was conducted by sociology professor Mark Regnerus. It examined the effect of family structures on children. The advantage of the study was that it was based on random sampling and a large sample (15,000 American youth). In addition, the sample was expanded by including households in which one of the adults had sometimes been in a homosexual relationship. The study was published in Social Science Research, the top sociology publication. This study showed that children of homosexual couples have significantly more emotional and social problems than children who grew up with both biological parents. Robert Oscar Lopez, who himself grew up with a lesbian mother and her female partner, commented on Regnerus' research:
Regnerus' research identified 248 adult children whose parents had a romantic relationship with a person of the same sex. When these adult children were offered the opportunity to candidly assess their childhood retrospectively from the perspective of adulthood, they gave answers that did not fit well with the egalitarian claim inherent in the gender-neutral marriage agenda. However, these results are supported by something that is important in life, namely common sense: It is difficult to grow up different from other people, and these difficulties increase the risk that children will have adjustment difficulties and that they will self-medicate with alcohol and other forms of dangerous behavior. Each of those 248 interviewees undoubtedly has their own human story with multiple complicating factors. Like my own story, the stories of these 248 people are worth telling. The homosexual movement does everything it can to make sure no one listens to them. (25)
It should come as no surprise that children of homosexual couples have problems. The same goes for all children who come from broken homes. They have many more problems in their lives than children who have been privileged to grow up with an intact biological family. In addition, homosexual culture is problematic for children, e.g. for the following reasons. They bring instability to children's lives:
• Gays have more loose relationships. This is especially true for male homosexuals, who according to one study (Mercer et al 2009) have five times more sexual relationships than heterosexual men.
• Homosexual women are characterized by short relationships. The difference percentage of female couples has been found to be significantly higher than that of male couples. Moreover, compared to heterosexual couples, the difference percentages are significantly higher. This also brings instability to children's lives.
• When the turnover of couples is high and at least one of the adults is not the child's own parent, the risk of sexual abuse increases. A study conducted by Regnerus found that only 2% of children raised by their biological father and mother said they had been sexually touched, while 23% of children raised by a lesbian mother said they had experienced the same. The same thing was less common among male homosexuals than among female couples.
• As is known, many activists of the homosexual movement have opposed and slandered such activities where people voluntarily want to get rid of the homosexual lifestyle. They have attacked it claiming it is harmful. However, the lifestyle of many homosexuals is actually harmful and risky due to many sexual relationships. Men in particular have an increased risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases and other diseases that are transmitted from one person to another. Among other things, AIDS is a problem. This can shorten their own life considerably, but it can also take away another parent from the child. This also makes children's lives unstable. The following quote tells more about the subject. It's a study led by Dr. Robert S. Hogg. His group collected data on gay and bisexual men in the Vancouver area from 1987-1992. The study looked at the effect of disease, not the tendency, on average life expectancy. Fortunately, vaccines have developed since earlier times, but there is still the risk of diseases spreading in numerous sexual relationships.
The probability of bi and homosexual men to live from age 20 to age 65 varied between 32 and 59 percent. These numbers are significantly lower than other men in general, who had a 78 percent chance of living from age 20 to age 65. Conclusion: In a large Canadian city, the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men in their 20s is 8-20 years less than that of other men. If the same trend in mortality were to continue, according to our estimate, almost half of gay and bisexual men now in their 20s will not reach their 65th birthday. Even by the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban center currently have a life expectancy equivalent to that of all men in Canada in 1871. (26)
HOW DO PEOPLE REACT TO THIS? As stated, a single homosexual parent can do his/her best in his/her role as a parent and try to be a good parent to his child. You can't deny that. However, it is also a fact that the family structure matters. Numerous studies, practical life experiences and common sense show that it is best for children to grow up in the company and loving care of their own biological parents. Of course, this doesn't always happen perfectly because the parents are flawed, but in general, children have been found to do better if both biological parents are present. So how do supporters of gender-neutral marriage react to this information, or if it calls into question the homosexual lifestyle? It usually manifests as the following reactions:
Accusations of homophobia and hate speech are common. Many people raise this accusation, but do not consider that even if we disagree on things, it does not mean hating the other person. Those making the argument cannot know the inner thinking of the other person and may not understand that despite the disagreement, the other person can be loved, or at least try to love. This difference should be understood. On the other hand, it is common for the most ardent supporters of gender-neutral marriage to slander and smear people who see things differently than they do. Even though they claim to represent love, they don't act on it. If you are such a slanderer yourself, what do you gain from it or if you get everyone's approval for your lifestyle?
Accusation of blaming. Earlier it was stated how the family structure is important for children's well-being. It has been found that teenage pregnancies, crime, substance abuse and emotional problems are more common in families where at least one of the biological parents is missing. This also has an impact financially, as society's social costs increase. For example, a study conducted in the USA in 2008 showed that divorces and children born out of wedlock cost taxpayers 112 billion dollars annually (Girgis et al 2012:46). Similarly, Etelä-Suomen sanomat reported on October 31, 2010: Institutional care for children and young people will soon cost a billion, Children's problems have worsened drastically since the early 1990s... Institutional care for one child costs up to 100,000 euros per year.... In addition, Aamulehti reported on March 3, 2013: A marginalised young person costs 1.8 million. If even one is brought back into society, the result is positive. How do others react to this information? They may claim that now single parents, homosexual parents or those who have failed in their marriages are being blamed. However, you don't have to look at it from that point of view. Just as well, everyone can think about how things can be fixed to make them better. If someone is planning, for example, to leave their spouse and family, they should think twice, because it can have profound effects on the children and their future. (Usually only children who have seen and experienced repeated violence can experience the separation of their parents as a relief.) Or if a homosexual is planning to have a child through artificial methods, he should think about how the child feels living without a father or a mother. Information about the importance of family structure for children is somewhat similar to information about the benefits of exercise or the dangers of smoking for health. This information is there, but not everyone reacts to it. However, if we follow the information available to everyone, it will improve our physical health.
"Trash research". Although practical sense and everyday life experience support that it is good for children if they are allowed to grow up in the family of both biological parents, some of the most ardent supporters of gender-neutral marriage try to deny this. They claim that the presence of a biological parent is not important, but that another adult can replace the presence of a missing parent. Here they cite specific studies that bear out this view. At the same time, it is explained that all previous information about the meaning of family structures is "junk research" and unscientific information. That's why they think it should be rejected. However, if you look at the studies that the proponents of gender-neutral marriage refer to, they rather meet the hallmarks of unscientific information. The reason is e.g. the following factors:
The sample of the studies is small, on average only 30-60 interviewees. Small sample sizes cannot provide statistically significant results. In order to make generalizations, the sample size should be multiple.
Comparison groups are missing or they are broken families. The problem with many studies is that they do not have comparison groups of opposite-sex couples at all. Or if there is a comparison group, it is most often a single-parent, reconstituted or cohabiting family. Marriages of biological parents, which are known to be the most favorable for children's development, are only rarely used as a comparison group. It was already stated earlier that children in broken families have significantly more problems.
From the 59 studies used by APA, 26 did not have a comparison group consisting of couples of different genders at all. 33 studies had such a comparison group, but in 13 studies the comparison group was single-parent families. In the remaining 20 studies, it is unclear whether the comparison group is a single parent, a cohabiting couple, a new family or a married couple formed by the child's biological parents. This deficiency alone makes generalization problematic, since Brown (2004: 364) states in his study analyzing 35,938 American children and their parents that regardless of financial and parenting resources, young people (12-17 years old) have lower outcomes in families of cohabiting couples than in families of two married biological parents. (27)
No random sampling and awareness of the importance of interviews. When the samples are small, another problem is that several of them are not based on random sampling, but the interviewees are recruited from activist forums. The interviewees may be aware of the political significance of the research and therefore give "appropriate" answers. Besides, who wants to tell negative about the well-being of their own children or a child about his/her parents, whose approval he/she needs? In this sense, several studies in this field are reminiscent of studies prepared decades ago by Alfred Kinsey. They were not based on random sampling, but a significant part of Kinsey's research results came from sex offenders, rapists, pimps, pedophiles, customers of gay bars and other sexually deviant people. Kinsey's results were claimed to be representative of the average American, but subsequent studies have given completely different results and refuted the information given by Kinsey. Dr. Judith Reisman has written about this subject in her influential book "Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences" (1998).
Purpose-seeking? When abortion was eventually legalized, it was claimed that illegal abortions were carried out in considerable numbers. For example, it was claimed that 30,000 illegal abortions take place in Finland every year, although after the change in the law, the numbers only settled around 10,000. What caused such large differences? Some abortion advocates have openly admitted afterwards that they exaggerated the numbers in order to sway lawmakers and public opinion. One can ask whether there is a similar goal orientation in numerous studies related to gender-neutral marriage. Some have admitted that such goals have occurred. Researchers have ignored the clear differences that can be seen because they have wanted to show that family structure is irrelevant to children's development. The following comment refers to this:
Stacey and Biblarz (2001: 162) admit that because researchers wanted to show that parenting by homosexual couples is as good as parenting by heterosexual couples, sensitive researchers treat the differences between these family forms cautiously. In other words, although researchers did in fact find differences in the parenting of cohabiting adults, they ignored them, downplayed their significance, or failed to conduct further research on the differences. The sexual orientation of the parents affected their children more than what the researchers brought up (Stacey & Biblarz 2001: 167). (28)
We also know that the majority of research is conducted by a few researchers. At times, they have collaborated. Furthermore, some of them have a homosexual background or they actively support gender-neutral marriage. This is a poor basis for unbiased research.
The impact of the perspective of individual researchers is accentuated because a few researchers have done a large part of the 60 studies in question. Charlotte J. Patterson is a co-author on twelve of those 60 studies, Henny Bos on nine, Nanette Gartrell on seven, Judith Stacey and Abbie Goldberg are co-authors on four, and a few others are co-authors on three studies. They have often done research together. This reduces the number of independent studies and increases the influence of researchers' biases. This explains why the same claims are repeated in several studies. Charlotte Patterson is a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia. In addition to her extensive research work, she also has first-hand experience of parenting practices in a family of a same-sex couple: he has raised three children in his 30-year union with Deborah Cohn. Nanette Gartrell, together with her spouse Dee Mosbacher, has actively defended the rights of homosexuals and has been the main researcher in the research project US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) funded by several prominent homosexual organizations. Henny Bos works as a professor of education at the University of Amsterdam and has participated together with Nanette Gartrell in the NLLFS research project. Abbie Goldberg is a professor of psychology at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts. She says that from the very beginning of her research work, she experienced the problem that "social practices and mass media reflect the so-called dominant norm, which is no longer so dominant (namely, the heterosexual nuclear family structure)". In several of her expert opinions, Judith Stacey has defended gender-neutral marriage, although she considers the best option to be to abolish the entire institution of marriage. In her opinion, the institution of marriage in itself increases inequality. (29)
Love. When the Nazis defended euthanasia, one of the reasons was compassion. It was explained that not all human life is worth living, and that is why, among other things, propaganda films were made to try to defend this issue. In the name of compassion, decisions were made that ultimately led to terrible consequences. Many things are defended even today in the name of love. Of course, it is not wrong for love to be defended, but often in reality it may be a mask for selfishness, especially for an adult's selfishness towards a child. As new currents have appeared in society in recent decades, many of them relate precisely to children. Children are forced to experience the consequences of adult choices. The sexual revolution, abortion, and gender-neutral marriage are three examples:
• The idea of the sexual revolution was that it is okay to have sex without a marital commitment. The matter was defended by saying that "there is nothing wrong with it if both people love each other". What has been and what is the consequence if a child is born into such a situation where the parents are not committed to each other before that? The happiest is of course the option where the parents immediately bond with each other and the child is born into a home with both parents. However, the practice is often different. The parents may have an abortion or they may separate and the child lives in the care of a single mother (or a single father). Sexual freedom, which may have been defended with love, is therefore not a good option for the child.
• Abortion came in the wake of the sexual revolution. Even today, the defenders of this matter are unable to give an explanation as to why a child in the mother's womb, who has the same body parts (eyes, nose, mouth, legs, hands) as a newborn or, for example, a 10-year-old child, would be less human. Mere residence in the mother's womb should not be the basis.
• Gender-neutral marriage – the subject of this article – can also be problematic for children. Because if children are obtained in such a union through artificial methods or temporary hetero relationships, it leaves the child in a situation where he is missing at least one of his/her biological parents at home.
References:
1. Wendy Wright: French Homosexuals Join Demonstration Against Gay Marriage, Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute, January 18, 2013 2. Liisa Tuovinen, ”Synti vai siunaus?” Inhimillinen tekijä. TV2, 2.11.2004, klo 22.05. 3. Bill Hybels: Kristityt seksihullussa kulttuurissa (Christians in a Sex Crazed Culture), p. 132 4. Espen Ottosen: Minun homoseksuaalit ystäväni (”Mine homofile venner”), p. 104 5. Espen Ottosen: Minun homoseksuaalit ystäväni (”Mine homofile venner”), p. 131 6. Lesboidentiteetti ja kristillisyys, p. 87, Seta julkaisut 7. Sinikka Pellinen: Homoseksuaalinen identiteetti ja kristillinen usko, p. 77, Teron kertomus 8. Ari Puonti: Suhteesta siunaukseen, p. 76,77 9. John Corvino: Mitä väärää on homoseksualisuudessa?, p. 161 10. Tapio Puolimatka: Seksuaalivallankumous, perheen ja kulttuurin romahdus, p. 172 11. Jean-Pierre Delaume-Myard: Homosexuel contre le marriage pour tous (2013), Deboiris, p. 94 12. Jean-Pierre Delaume-Myard: Homosexuel contre le marriage pour tous (2013), Deboiris, p. 210 13. Jean-Pierre Delaume-Myard: Homosexuel contre le marriage pour tous (2013), Deboiris, p. 212 14. Jean-Marc Guénois: “J’ai été élevé par deux femmes”, Le Figaro 1.10.2013 15. Tapio Puolimatka: Lapsen ihmisoikeus, oikeus isään ja äitiin, p. 28,29 16. Frank Litgvoet: “The Misnomer of Motherless Parenting”, New York Times 07/2013 17. Tapio Puolimatka: Lapsen ihmisoikeus, oikeus isään ja äitiin, p. 43,44 18. Alana Newman: Testimony of Alana S. Newman. Opposition to AB460. To the California Assembly Committee on Health, April 30, 2013. 19. Edwin Louis Cole: Miehuuden haaste, p. 104 20. David Popenoe (1996): Life without Father: Compelling New Evidence That Fatherhood and Marriage Are Indispensable for the Good of Children and Society. New York: Free Press. 21. Kristin Anderson Moore & Susan M. Jekielek & Carol Emig:” Marriage from a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children and What Can We do About it”, Child Trends Research Brief, Child Trends, June 2002, http:www. childrentrends.org&/files/marriagerb602.pdf.) 22. Sara McLanahan & Gary Sandefur: Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps, p. 38 23. Margaret Mead: Some Theoretical Considerations on the Problem of Mother-Child Separation, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, vol. 24, 1954, p. 474 24. Sotirios Sarantakos: Children in Three Contexts: Family, Education and Social Development, Children Australia 21, 23-31, (1996) 25. Robert Oscar Lopez: Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Cgildren’s View, The Public Discourse, Augustth, 2012 26. International Journal of Epidemiology Modelling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual men; International Journal of Epidemiology; Vol. 26, No 3, p. 657 27. Tapio Puolimatka: Lapsen ihmisoikeus, oikeus isään ja äitiin, p. 166 28. Tapio Puolimatka: Lapsen ihmisoikeus, oikeus isään ja äitiin, p. 176 29. Tapio Puolimatka: Lapsen ihmisoikeus, oikeus isään ja äitiin, p. 178,179
Homosexuality and being freed from it. What causes homosexuality, its underlying factors and can one get rid of it? Homosexuality, church and society. Today, homosexuality is not considered a sin and a lust. It is justified in the name of love and equality. Development in society affects also churches Sexuality, love, equality. Sexuality, love and equality - is all sexual behavior right? Letter to the representatives of Seta -organization, that is, how society has changed its attitude toward homosexuality, as predicted in the prophecies
|
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
Grap to eternal life!
|
Homosexuality and being freed from it. What causes homosexuality, its underlying factors and can one get rid of it? Homosexuality, church and society. Today, homosexuality is not considered a sin and a lust. It is justified in the name of love and equality. Development in society affects also churches Sexuality, love, equality. Sexuality, love and equality - is all sexual behavior right? Letter to the representatives of Seta -organization, that is, how society has changed its attitude toward homosexuality, as predicted in the prophecies
|
