NOM BLOG

"Love Isn’t Enough: 5 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children"

 

Dr. Trayce L. Hansen is a licensed psychologist with a clinical and forensic practice:

Proponents of same-sex marriage believe the only thing children really need is love. Based on that supposition, they conclude it’s just as good for children to be raised by loving parents of the same sex, as it is to be raised by loving parents of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, that basic assumption—and all that flows from it—is false. Because love isn’t enough!

All else being equal, children do best when raised by a married mother and father. It’s within this environment that children are most likely to be exposed to the emotional and psychological experiences they need in order to thrive.

Men and women bring diversity to parenting; each makes unique contributions to the rearing of children that can’t be replicated by the other. Mothers and fathers simply are not interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father.

So here are five reasons why it’s in the best interest of children to be raised by both a mother and a father:

... First, mother-love and father-love—though equally important—are qualitatively different and produce distinct parent-child attachments.

... Secondly, children progress through predictable and necessary developmental stages.

... Third, boys and girls need an opposite-sexed parent to help them moderate their own gender-linked inclinations.

... Fourth, same-sex marriage will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people.

... And fifth, if society permits same-sex marriage, it also will have to allow other types of marriage.

Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving as heterosexual couples, but children require more than love. They need the distinctive qualities and the complementary natures of a male and female parent.

The accumulated wisdom of over 5,000 years has concluded that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. Arrogantly disregarding such time-tested wisdom, and using children as guinea pigs in a radical experiment, is risky at best, and cataclysmic at worst.

Same-sex marriage definitely isn’t in the best interest of children. And although we empathize with those homosexuals who long to be married and parent children, we mustn’t allow our compassion for them to trump our compassion for children. In a contest between the desires of some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we can’t allow the children to lose.

Read her full article here.

21 Comments

  1. Randy E King
    Posted March 4, 2012 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

    Kate,

    All of the court cases I refrenced dating back to 1829 were decided, in part, on scientific fact that is clearly outlined in court findings of fact; whereas the drival you offer is speculative tripe that has never achieved so much as an honorable mention in any official court finding.

    Answers to questions is politics; not science.

  2. D&G
    Posted March 4, 2012 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

    Randy,

    Your conjecture will be disqualified as fact when prop h8 is fully exposed, yet repeatedly, at scotus, by evidence mirroring Dr Kate's. If you do not wish this to be the case then please contact Cooper and Pugno to tell them you wish to be admitted to/by the court as an expert witness. You seem confident in your knowledge and ability to amass credible scientific information that will do what you want it to: make it illegal for LGBT to marry a LGBT of the same sex and raise children. The one hurdle I would guess must be removesd is the LGBT ability to legally adopt. If what you say is true, this would not be the case. The court system would have already noticed your glaringly obvious assertion of harmful child safely and welfare due to homosexuals raising them.

    Mary,

    You are clearly ignorant of HIV's connection to heterosexual female prostitute's involvement with their heterosexual male......investors in Africa. From your version of homosexual male's irresponsibility, one would safely believe if you knew the reality of HIV the world over you would make a blanket generalization of heterosexual females and males as they were the biggest and earliest transmission route. Or maybe you would just judge all African heterosexuals by your criteria. You need to get out more in this big world so you can better educate yourself.

  3. Natalie
    Posted March 4, 2012 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

    Randy,

    Your conjecture will be disqualified as fact when prop h8 is fully exposed, yet repeatedly, at scotus, by evidence mirroring Dr Kate's. If you do not wish this to be the case then please contact Cooper and Pugno to tell them you wish to be admitted to/by the court as an expert witness. You seem confident in your knowledge and ability to amass credible scientific information that will do what you want it to: make it illegal for LGBT to marry a LGBT of the same sex and raise children. The one hurdle I would guess must be removesd is the LGBT ability to legally adopt. If what you say is true, this would not be the case. The court system would have already noticed your glaringly obvious assertion of harmful child safely and welfare due to homosexuals raising them.

    Mary,

    You are clearly ignorant of HIV's connection to heterosexual female prostitute's involvement with their heterosexual male......investors in Africa. From your version of homosexual male's irresponsibility, one would safely believe if you knew the reality of HIV the world over you would make a blanket generalization of heterosexual females and males as they were the biggest and earliest transmission route. Or maybe you would just judge all African heterosexuals by your criteria. You need to get out more in this big world so you can better educate yourself.

  4. Natalie
    Posted March 4, 2012 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

    Moderator,

    If my previous comment is not posted, that gesture on our behalf is further proof of why and that bigots such as yourself will be cast into the past's unfortunate list of inhumane people, organizations and leaders. I hope you will be proud of what scotus judges you as, just as we have built our resistance to your aforementioned inhumanity on the strong pride in ourselves as we are.......human beings equally deserving of the exact same legal opportunities as you. Wow! Sure sounds like a civil rights movement.

  5. mary
    Posted March 4, 2012 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

    You obviously didn't read the article.

  6. John N.
    Posted March 4, 2012 at 10:28 pm | Permalink

    Thank you Mary. I did google that superb article on the Health Risks of Gay Sex. It was excellent and I also downloaded the sister article of the financial costs to society because of this. Further down the Google path leads to nice articls from CRC on the financial costs to all of us for same sex marriage and domestic partner benefits.

    Your article will supplement the YouTube video "Dangers of the Gay Lifestyle"

  7. TC Matthews
    Posted March 4, 2012 at 11:41 pm | Permalink

    "If my previous comment is not posted.."

    Did you mean to say if your previous two or three identical comments posing as two or three different people?

    Seriously?

  8. Graham
    Posted March 4, 2012 at 11:43 pm | Permalink

    Well that's awkward.

  9. Bryce K.
    Posted March 4, 2012 at 11:47 pm | Permalink

    TC Matthews, do you have hard proof that Natalie is the same person as other posters? If not, or even if it is, that is an irrelevant topic to post on. It's a waste of space and energy.

  10. Graham
    Posted March 4, 2012 at 11:56 pm | Permalink

    You mean hard proof other than what is already posted here? You're right, Natalie and D&G are probably just random people that happened to have the same thoughts word for word, within mere moments of each other.

  11. Chairm
    Posted March 5, 2012 at 12:09 am | Permalink

    Gregory, the adoption services of Catholic Charities in the Boston area did not arrange adoptions to "same sex couples" in quite the way claimed. It was not their policy. It was not common ... perhaps one case has been substantiateds to a certain extent and that was done in response to the change in overnment policy post-SSM. Even that case demonstrated the problem of government forcing antiCatholic policies on Atholic agencies.

    The conflict was creates by the gay lobby and not by Catholic Charities which had been responsible for arranging the vast majority of adoptions in that state.

    There are adoption agencies that cater expressly to the homosexual subpopulation. There was no just basis for chasing Catholic Charities out of the adoption services.

    Your account of this dicredits your claimed insight into Massachusetts. Your progay bigotry is on display.

  12. Chairm
    Posted March 5, 2012 at 12:14 am | Permalink

    Also Gregory that one case was done in defiance of the adoption agency's Catholic policy and the dissdents resigned when confronted by the Bishop. That contradicts your propagandic version of events.

    Meanwhile the SSM idea promotes greater and greater Government encroachment into civil society. That is antisocial and turns the basis of our form of government upside down.

    The People have a government, not the other way around.

  13. Chairm
    Posted March 5, 2012 at 1:07 am | Permalink

    Of the subpopulation of openly homosexual adults in America, ninety percent does not live in same-sex households (a census term that assumes the adults are in ahomosexual relationship) and less than three percent of the subpopulation of homosexual adults resides in such household with children. That is a tiny fragment of the child population from which to pool a randomized sample and it hardly makes for social scientific claims based on long term studies of randomized samples.

    Any conclusions based on the scarcity of social scientific evidence must be seen in that light.

    Also, most of the relatively few hildren residing in same sex households were not attained by adoption nor by third party procreation (use of "donated" sperm or egg or surrogacy). Of that small population of children, maybe 4% were adopted and some fragment of 1% were created with "donations". That leaves about ninety-five percent attained via prior heterosexual relationships of mom and dad.

    The vast majority o the relatively tiny subpopulation of children residing in same sex households is comprised of children of divorced or estranged mom-dad duos.

    From this we know a few things based on the mountainous social scientific evidence grnered over the past few decades on family strucutre and the well being of children:

    Dr Hanson'ssummary is accurate and instructive. The intact family founded on marriage of mom and dad in a low conflict reationship is the benchmark against which that all other variations have come up short.

    Society has a strong interest in encouraging more such families and that means showing preference for the core meanin of the social institution of marriage.

    The SSM campaign and its SSM idea rejects that core meaning, rejects societal preference for it, and al but declares -- in the name of gay identity politics -- that there is insufficient or no societal interest in encouraging the benchmark family structure.

    What we know about the structure of same sex households with children is at least the following:

    1. the structure resembles the step-family with children moved from prior heterosexual relationships of mom and dad (usually marriedparents now divorced).

    2. the structure resembles single parent households in that either mom or dad is not present or is outside of the child's home.

    3. the structure resembles adoptive families in the severed link between biological and social parenthood.

    These three factors have been well studied and the benchmark remains as described above.

    What we know about same-sexparenting sacenarios is that there are ore non-gay families than gay families raising children in such households. Grandparents raise children with parents at a high level than the census count of homosexual households. Millions compared with thousands.

    Do the ga advocates claim that same sex sexual behavior is a structural difference? Apparently not and yet they emphasize homosexuality and this turn a blind ee to the wider spectrum of same sex parenting scenarios. They also talk as if most children raised in homosexual relationships are distinct from divorced and adoptive scenarios that are not homosexualized.

    What is it about homosexual behavior that they contend as makin the gay parenting scenario superior to the other structures that fall short of the benchmark?Thay claim in their rhetoric that such gay scenarios are as god as the benchmark but what they really suggest is that there is no benchmark and that there can be no benchmark.

    What do we know about the supopulation of homosexual adults?

    That the men are disproportionately at risk of debilitating and life shortening physical maldies. That sexual promiscuity is heightened in a male-only sexual ecology.

    That the women suffer disproportionately from psychological maladies brought on b relationship issues in a female-only sexual ecology. These impact quality of life and stability of domestic relations.

    That there is a disproportionate instability due to the excesses of sex segregative structure in intimate relationships. There is a stark difference based on sex as per the contrast between the disproportionate physical sexual promiscuity of the male homosexual adult population and the disproportionate psychosocial overindulgences of the female homosexual adult population.

    Neither makes for an optimum pool of prospective adoptors; neither provides the general strengths of sexual complementarity that is at the core of marriage ... the combination of sex integration and provision for responsible procreation.

    Might there be exceptions,too? Of course. But we should consider the available social scientific evidence. There isthe evidence on family structure. There is the evidence on sexual and domestic behaviors of homosexual adults. Taken together the evidence supports Dr Hanson's summary and her opinions based on that evidence.

    But that does not disparage the suboptimal faily structures nor does it disparage homosexual adults. It rather invokes sympathy for the circumstances in which children are raised inscenarios in which there is a lack of or a diminishment of sex integration and responsible procreation.

    That points toward discouraging the suboptimal and encouraging the optimal.

  14. M. Jones
    Posted March 5, 2012 at 2:05 am | Permalink

    Its amazing that the political arm of AMA and APA think biology is up for a vote from their members. Political organizations like these cannot change what God made, and what he ordained in marriage so that a child can have a mother and father. No one is born homosexual, God wouldn't do that to anyone!!

  15. Randy E King
    Posted March 5, 2012 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    D&G/Natalie

    Walker's infamous points of fact have disappeared after having been reviewed by like minded activist jurists who then had to turn to a unrelated case for justification for their position; having been left nowhere else to go by the obviously bias and bigoted appointed attorney’s assigned to District Court.

    Prop 8 will be upheld on appeal due to the same one hundred and fifty years of precedence previously noted. In fact, Americas history and traditions, as they relate to this topic, date back nearly sixty years prior to the coining of the word “homosexual.” - a word that did not come into wide-spread use until the early seventies.

  16. Lefty
    Posted March 5, 2012 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

    Research reveals variable hormonal levels in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy permanently affect child’s neural circuitry for sexual orientation and gender identity to express on a spectrum between straight and gay, same or opposite gender. (...)

    @Kate O'Hanlan, MD

    In that case, homosexuality is clearly a birth defect. It is reasonable to predict that science will discover how to prevent hormonal miscues of development. Will you object to doing that?

  17. Posted March 5, 2012 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

    If Kate O'Hanhan had it figured out to that extent then she should demonstrate it be predicting "sexual orientation" before birth or before adolesence.

    Whether or not same sex sexual proclivity is inborn to some, if any, degree, no sociopolitical identity is inborn.In their assertion of the primacy of the gay identity group SSMers rely on the naturalistic fallacy among others.

  18. John Noe
    Posted March 5, 2012 at 10:25 pm | Permalink

    It is obvious that this MD at post #47 is a total quack. This person does not even deserve to be called a medical doctor.
    Mary had a post that presented overwhelming factual evidence of the dangers in engaging in this unhealthy behavior known as homosexuality. The evidence proves that it leads to disease and early loss of life and is even worse than tobacco. Evidence backed by the way by the CDC. So this person claiming to be a doctor tells all of us so what, it does not matter, you can do this as the evidence is just malarky.
    I am sure glad this person is not my doctor.

  19. Shauna
    Posted March 5, 2012 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

    Randy/Chairm,

    Your ability to misrepresent, distort, misconceptualize, misinform about, sustain a purposeful ignorance of, knowingly lie about and defame homosexuals is gold medal worthy. If homophobia was an Olympic sport you two would have no competition.

  20. Louis E.
    Posted March 6, 2012 at 2:18 am | Permalink

    Shauna,your inclination to believe pro-homosexuality propaganda does not belong in the Olympics.

  21. Chairm
    Posted March 7, 2012 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

    Shauna, thank you for the solid content in your substantive rejoinder. You described the pro SSM campaign's rhetoric quite well. Projecting that onto our comments does not help your lack of constructive engagement. Thanks,again.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.