Vive la difference!
By Mark Charalambous, March 21, 2004
“Forty percent of all children in Massachusetts are adopted by same sex couples.” This remarkable fact was revealed by Sen. Jo Ann Sprague during her passionate speech at the March 11 Massachusetts Constitutional Convention. But rather than a warning against the further legitimization of homosexuality, this statement was given as evidence in favor of granting full marriage rights to homosexuals.
Can there be a better example of the lunacy presently holding sway in Massachusetts? Can someone please explain the logic of how it benefits children to be raised by women who wish they were men and men who wish to be women? Previously considered a disorder, homosexuality has now apparently been elevated to a virtue. Sen. Sprague believes we should legalize same-sex marriage for the benefit of children. And she is not alone. Along with Margaret Marshall’s Gang of Four and the Travaligni-Lees axis in the Statehouse, there is no doubt that the mainstream media in the state is also pressing full bore for same-sex marriage.
Homosexuals benefit from a news reporting double standard. Images of loving gay couples with children are juxtaposed with ranting, religious anti-gay marriage partisans. This bias extends to undisputed criminal behavior by homosexuals. Take for example the hand-wringing of PBS news commentators and various other pundits regarding the prison murder of convicted homosexual priest John Geoghan. Judging by the reaction, one would think that this man was some benevolent soul who spent his life helping children but somehow ran afoul of the law because of some character flaw. Prison murders are nothing new. Why the hue and cry and calling for new penal procedures to protect inmates as a result of the murder of this particular criminal?
Earth to liberal media: He raped boys. Get it?
Now, can we have some equal time, please?
I lived in San Francisco for several years in the 70s and 80s. I had bisexual roommates and had gay friends. I went to the first Hooker’s Ball, and mingled with that “diverse” population. I remember one afternoon when a male co-worker told me that he had just had sex in a gas station bathroom with a man he met while at lunch. This was not unusual, but rather typical behavior of the gay population in SF. When the object of the male sex drive is another male, the outcome can be nothing but rampant promiscuity. Can you say “bathhouse?”
And what can we expect from the outcome of lesbian marriages? Attorney and former Mass. gubernatorial candidate Barbara Johnson once had to drop a lesbian client she was representing in a domestic relations case. “They were absolutely off the wall. Nuts.” she said. Bear in mind that Johnson’s stock-in-trade is representing men in the most vicious and contentious of divorces and custody cases--often men who have been falsely accused of sexually abusing their children, but more typically fathers who have just had their civil and human rights, such as access to their children, violated by spurious allegations of domestic abuse.
Just as off-the-wall sexual mayhem is the typical result of male homosexuality because there is no check and balance from female needs and social-biological imperatives, off-the-scale legal mayhem will be the result of lesbian divorces, especially when there are children involved. Operating under the paradigm that it is always the man’s fault, how will courts determine whom to punish in same-sex divorces? Here’s what the salty Ms. Johnson predicts:
“Can you imagine the quagmire and the cost to pay attorneys to prove who is the male and who is the female in a male-male or woman-woman relationship? Lordy, they'll be measuring sphincter muscles and comparing the scores of dildo types. The symptoms of abuse will be diarrhea and torn labia.”
Every day in the newspaper I see reasoned (though wrong) arguments favoring same-sex marriage, sprinkled by letters from fundamentalist Christians opposing homosexuality because “the Bible says…” The logical, commonsense and scientific arguments against placing homosexual unions in the same sphere as the biological family are nowhere to be found.
Where’s the discussion about how much of homosexuality is learned, adaptive behavior versus how much is attributed to congenital factors? Where’s the discussion of the likelihood that gay parents will inculcate homosexuality into their children? Where’s the discussion that links the two? That is, if homosexuality is overwhelmingly learned behavior, same-sex parents will inevitably raise children to be homosexual. Where’s the discussion about disparate rates of homosexuality in twins that shows this to be true?
If homosexuality was not learned, adaptive behavior, one is forced to the absurd conclusion that all the incarcerated men and women who engage in homosexuality behind bars are actually latent homosexuals who merely required the necessary environment to discover their true nature. Common sense dictates that it is the unnatural conditions of imprisonment without access to opposite-sex partners that leads to homosexuality in prison.
Studies that exuberantly report finding no significant difference in children raised by same-sex parents simply can’t be trusted. Like the volumes of other agenda-driven social science studies, they suffer from a lack of sound methodology. According to Steven Nock of the University of Virginia, "not a single one of those studies was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research."
Even some supporters of same-sex marriage admit the chicanery. According to author Ann Hulbert, a same-sex marriage proponent and author of “Raising America: Experts, Parents, and a Century of Advice about Children,” Judith Stacey is a well-known sociologist whose strident advocacy of "alternative" families has made her “a nemesis of traditionalists.” Yet Stacey “readily concurred with the traditionalist critics' charge that scholarship in the still-fledgling field of gay parenting has been conducted almost entirely by researchers sympathetic to gay concerns.”
Should we be surprised by well-meaning heterosexual liberals arguing, “Why shouldn’t gays be allowed to marry? It doesn’t affect me or my marriage?” No. Thirty-plus years of moral relativism has taken its toll. As we slouch our way to Gomorrah, we can unfortunately no longer expect such people to think of anything larger than their immediate concerns. “Make a moral judgment on someone’s behavior? For society’s benefit? Heaven forbid!” These are, after all, the same people who think that the recent canceling of the Howard Stern radio show by several stations is an attack on free speech and poses a danger to civil liberties.
Homosexuality was declassified as a disorder by the American Psychological Association in 1973, the same year as Roe v. Wade. The lunatics have been running the asylum ever since. I am reminded of a conversation I had with a neighbor, a native of India. Considered an overly strict parent by the neighborhood children--especially his own--this man neatly summed up in two words the state of decay in American society: “It’s chaos.” Concerned Americans on the right side of the culture war are watching Massachusetts and wondering, just where is the bottom of this downward spiral?
Bottom line: The institution of marriage and the biological family are not merely arbitrary social constructs tyrannically imposed on the homosexual minority by the heterosexual majority; they are civilization’s expression of nature’s two-billion-year-old solution to survival: sexual reproduction. For this reason, the union of man and woman has been ritualized by every religion and social system known to history. Vive la difference!
# # #