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.

71 Comments

  1. ResistSSA
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    One of the things that is often overlooked in these discussions is the importance of extended family.

    Those blood relationships are important for such things as the child's health (health issues get passed through the genes); understanding the child's personality, talents, and other attributes and where they come from; and providing an extraordinary bond with a large pool of people that is uniquely close by virtue of the mere fact that they share genetic material.

    The importance of being connected to extended family is difficult to quantify, but anyone who has close relationships with grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc..., recognize it. When we strip a child of its mom or dad, we strip it of many other important relationships that oftentimes contribute to the well-being of the child.

  2. ResistSSA
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    Why has marriage always been the union between two people? Why not three or more?

    Why didn't marriage begin between homosexual couples instead of between heterosexual couples?

    Answer that and you understand the purpose of marriage and why homosexual couples were never included in the definition. No bigotry, no prejudice, just good ol' biology, common sense, and the recognition of the importance of children.

  3. Curious George
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 10:19 am | Permalink

    Because "marriage" has been: Between 2 people; between multiple people; between a man and a woman; between 2 men; between 2 women; and everything in between.

    What does the 1st marriages have to do with anything today? Before 1967, the question was "Why didn't marriage begin with interracial couples?"

    Tradition (even your mis-interpretation of it) is not a justification for continuing to deny all citizens the right to choose who they enter into a civil marriage contract regardless of the race, religion or sex of their chosen partner.

  4. Curious George
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 10:27 am | Permalink

    1st - Having a man and a woman raise a child is no guarantee that the child will thrive. There are heterosexual couples who are very bad at parenting. There are same sex couples who are very good a parenting. The quality of the relationship between the partners is much more important than the sex of either.

    2nd - This is a factual statement and is true if the parents are of the same sex or of different sexes.

    3rd - A child has multiple sources of both male and female influences when growing up. Even same sex couples have opposite sexed parents, sisters, brothers, cousins, nieces, nephews, neighbors, etc. The child when growing up is not raised in isolation.

    4th - There are same sexed civil unions, same sex parents of other children - the world is coming around to realize that "being gay" is not the end of the world. This will lead to more children not hiding the fact that they are gay. It will not suddenly turn Johnny, who likes girls, to experiment with boys.

    5th - Has nothing to do with if same sex parents are as good as opposite sex parents. Completely off topic.

  5. The.Truth
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    Can you say quack.

    Ha! Licenced Psychologist is meaningless. This woman is not credentialed and probably never was. Furthermore it is clear she has a mental defect in that she is a fundamentalist Christian and spouts off long discredited bull from recognized fundamentalist hate groups.

    Is it any wonder why she has never been called to testify at ANY trial regarding same gender marriage.

  6. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 11:04 am | Permalink

    Of course we must remember that any child living with a same-sex couple is genetically related to only one of them at most.

    When a lesbian couple, for example, has more than one child they often consider it of utmost importance that they use the same sperm donor so the children will be biologically related. In this phase they recognize the importance of biological connections.

    When it comes to the children actually knowing their father, however, they completely discount the importance of biological connections.

    The internal disconnect involved in these mental gymnastics is popularly known as psychosis.

  7. Randy E King
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 11:07 am | Permalink

    George/Truth,

    Your arguments in support of your proclivity amount to nothing more than conjecture of theoretical abnormalities.

    Proclivity: an inclination or predisposition toward something; especially: a strong inherent inclination toward something objectionable

    Conjecture: inference from defective or presumptive evidence

    Theoretical: confined to theory or speculation often in contrast to practical applications

    Abnormality: deviating from the normal or average

    note: definitions provided as a courtesy; intended to reduce inclination of marriage corruption supporters to apply their own inference to presented text.

  8. JR
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 11:27 am | Permalink

    Why does the title of the article state :"Same-sex Marriage Will Harm Children" when the body of the article says nothing to that effect. The article merely states the woman's feelings that children do better when parents are of opposite sexes. In no way does the article state that children raised by same-sex parents suffer. Of the 5 points. the first 3 have some credibility. But then the 4th degenerates into the usual homophobic rant of children effected by what takes place behind their parent's bedroom door and the 5th is utterly ridiculous and irrelevant to the study. Here is a link to a story than can provide some much needed balance.http://gayzette.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/news-follows-up/

  9. Randy E King
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 11:28 am | Permalink

    George,

    Each of the theoretical abnormalities you propose carry a distinct commonality: The scenarios sever childrens biological connection to their heritage; enslaving them to your transitory ideology.

  10. Randy E King
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    George,

    Your dependence on abnormalities in support of your rediculous assertions does little to support your position.

  11. Zack
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    Well it's harmful because you are telling children they don't need a mother and a father for parental guidance, that the two genders are interchangeable. They're being told that any parent regardless of gender will do when that is not true.

  12. Vladimir Vandalov
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

    As a licensed psychologist in the State of California, Dr. Hansen contradicts the position of her own professional organizations. The American Psychological Association, The California Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy filed a brief as Amici Curiae in support of research showing that gay and lesbian parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.

  13. Charlie
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    If Dr Hansen testifies in court, she is recognized as an expert by the court. She is licensed by the state, which is reluctant to recognize quacks.

    She has read widely among the research, and has come to some conclusions.

    George and Truth, we could say that you have a mental defect because you do not wish to hear evidence that contradicts your secularist, selfish views. Find research that supports your idea that children raised by any configuration do as well as by a mother and father. There may be one or two that suggest it, but far from the number that indicate otherwise - strongly.

  14. Louis E.
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    ResistSSA,it has always united male to female,but has NOT always been one of each.Prefer that if you like,but don't treat any other characteristic as of the same importance as uniting male to female.
    CG,you're not entitled to treat uniting male to female as optional either.
    JR,being led to believe that same-sex sexual relationships can ever be justified constitutes psychological abuse of a child,no matter who does it.

  15. Greogry
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    As David Hart points out ( http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/2012/03/open-email-to-dr-trayce-hansen.html ), Hansen has a history of hyperbole regarding gay people. His response to her article is also revealing.

  16. Randy E King
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    "there is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; however most people whether heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." APA

    And how does the APA - a special interest group - come to its position; they base their position on answers to questions.

    Answers to questions is politics; not science.

    Asking a person with a pathology if they chose to do the thing they did is a lot like asking an illegal immigrant if they chose to immigrate illegaly; they will nearly always provide an answer that is most beneficial to them.

  17. Greogry
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

    Uh, Randy, the APA is not a "special interest group." Suggesting so is preposterous. The APA is a highly respected scientific organization. Positions are derived from PUBLISHED and PEER REVIEWED research in respected scholarly journals. Peer reviewed articles are submitted to the referee process which establishes conformity with scientific methodology and professional standards - irrespective of the conclusions of that research.

  18. Greogry
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    As I referenced in a comment, above, David Hart makes a very good point. Hansen's arguments have nothing to do with gay marriage. Rather, she is stating her objections to gay parenting.

    I have roots in Massachusetts. For many years, Catholic Charities was placing children with gays and gay couples. It was only after gay marriage was effected that the hierarchy made this an issue and Catholic Charities was forced to withdraw. It was the bishops who created the issue and the problem.

    The reason that Catholic Charities placed children with gays is because gay couples were often willing to take children who were difficult to place. the alternative was kids who would not be adopted.

    Over the years, of course, the scientific consensus developed that children raised by gay parents did just as well.

  19. Randy E King
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

    Gregory,

    New APA president vows to restore specialty's credibility

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4345/is_7_33/ai_n29196186/

    The only ones claiming the APA is not a special intrest group are those groups that benefit from the APA's unsubstantiated findings.

    Or to quote a president of the APA:

    "American psychiatry is facing a "crisis of credibility,"

    "Our profession is seen, by many, as an interest group, a trade association. And too often we have behaved like one," said Dr. Sharfstein, who has served as president and chief executive officer of the Sheppard Pratt Health System, a nonprofit psychiatric hospital system in Baltimore, since 1992.

    Psychiatrists are failing to lead when it comes to problems such as lack of access, high costs, and unmeasured quality in health care. The problem, he said, is not a lack of sound policy proposals, but the profession's lack of credibility and leverage.

    "When we speak, too few listen," he said. "And to a large extent, we have only ourselves to blame."

    Even the APA acknowledges this truth you deny.

  20. M. Jones
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

    Dr. Hansen is a respected researcher, and no one has found fault with her peer reviewed studies and scientific methodology.

  21. The.Truth
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

    Oh please M. Jones. What peer reviewed studies, particularly any that have any relationship to this diatribe.

  22. Randy E King
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

    Truth,

    You will have to forgive people for refusing to kòu tóu to your "who are you going to believe; me, or your own lying eye's" defense of your proclivity.

    Your omnipotence is not as self evident as you seem to believe. Maybe you should come out of the shadow of your facticious handle and let us come to know the real you.

    Kind of hard to to take a fake name seriously sunshine.

  23. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for the link and info, Randy.

    Anyone with a child of their own knows the biological link is also a spiritual one. They are complementary, not mutually exclusive. That's why it's a heinous act to intentionally sever it.

  24. Greogry
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    Randy: Wrong group and wrong context. I am not even sure if Sharfstein is still president of the American Psychiatric Association (The reference was to the American Psychological Association). That article was written SEVEN years ago - or didn't you notice.

  25. Greogry
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

    M. Jones:

    "Dr. Hansen is a respected researcher, and no one has found fault with her peer reviewed studies and scientific methodology."

    First of all she has not written any articles that have been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. If she HAD, there would be considerable fault finding including her selective observation, unsubstantiated conclusions and obvious bias.

  26. Randy E King
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

    Gregory,

    I know you folks like to hold that credible repudiations of your rediculous assertions have a shelf life of about five minutes, but I assure you that position will not hold up under SCOTUS review.

    FYI; the APA is the APA even when they disagree with you.

  27. Randy E King
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

    Psychiatry is not a science:

    http://www.cchr.org/quick-facts/introduction.html

  28. Heather
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

    What all you liberal pro gay people fail to understand is that this article is talking about raising a child. Marry a tree if you want to but don't bring a child into your nasty wrong twisted sexual desires. Sick.

  29. AM
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

    Family structure has been extensively studied for decades. The natural family has been proven, time and again, to be the best environment for the healthy development for children.

    The only other family structure that comes close is the adoptive family, and we spend a great deal of
    time and effort securing a good home for those kids.

    Compare that to what happens *naturally* between a married man and woman when they start a family. Almost like it was planned that way. :-)

  30. Louis E.
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

    Greogry,
    The bishops being slow to stop the problem of children being consigned to the custody of same-sex couples by people who had a responsibility to avoid that did not create the problem,just delayed the solution.

  31. Posted March 4, 2012 at 1:08 am | Permalink

    Children aren't chic accessories, they are human beings with inalienable rights, among which include the right to be raised by their own mother and father. Children's needs/rights trump adult wants.

  32. Mr. Incredible
    Posted March 4, 2012 at 4:04 am | Permalink

    I always thought that courts heavily had to consider the best interests of the child.

  33. Bryce K.
    Posted March 4, 2012 at 4:10 am | Permalink

    Then what about all those kids in orphanages and foster care, DOE? They will never be raised by their own biological parents. Are we to deny them a loving home if the adopting parents are of the same gender?

  34. Tom
    Posted March 4, 2012 at 4:53 am | Permalink

    @Heather & Daughter Of Eve - I agree with your posts 100%.

  35. roger
    Posted March 4, 2012 at 5:45 am | Permalink

    I'm afraid that Dr. Hansen's opinions will not be enough. We need hard data that shows children who grow up in Gay homes Drop out of School, Do Drugs, End Up in Jail etc - at a much higher rate than kids growing up in Biological homes.

    Unfortunately, as of now, there isn't any data that confirms those types of harms. Gay Parenting is too new a phenomena. Most of the current studies actually show Gay Parents to be superior to Hetero's!! Not because that's true, but because they are biased....a bunch of PhD lesbian Moms studying the Sons and Daughters of other PhD lesbian Moms. If they just controlled for Age, Education and Economic Status I'm certain the Bio-Family would be the better environment for Children.

    Why do I believe that?
    1) The huge NIS4 study shows children in Bio Families are significantly less likely to be abused than any other family - Adopted, Single, Remarried, Separated etc. The NIS 4 did not break out Gay Families, but the Gay Families do fall into one of the sub optimal categories.

    2) The Early studies on divorce showed no impact on kids. Now, after years of study, its clear it does. The Academic Community is not above bias.

    Until, the studies can be completed, which will take many years, if not decades, Opinions like Dr Hansen's will have to suffice - and as long as voters decide, Marriage can be defended in the court of broad public opinion. Gays like to point to the success of PhD gay families...but the two Gay Families I know are far from PhD's...and their Children are a wreck! There are ton of Moms at the lower end of the Socio-economic scale who become Gay because the Dad is a Deadbeat, and if they pool Government aid they can scrape by. How 'bout a study of those so called gay families

  36. mary
    Posted March 4, 2012 at 8:03 am | Permalink

    Glad to see someone is finally speaking up about this. Anyone who has ever studied child development knows that children need both a mother and father.

  37. Posted March 4, 2012 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    The Supreme Court will want to know what the preponderant policies are that have been established by America's best experts on child health and mental health.
    SCOTUS will see right through any individual like Hansen, Rekers, Blakenhorn and Miller that dare to purport to be experts over and above the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Association of child and Adolescent Psychiatrists.
    Sorry to NOM, but there is not a shread of science in all of the peer-reviewed literature that will support banning civil marriage for SS couples.
    What will also come out in the SCOTUS reivew is that there is every justification for considering orientation and identity as "Suspect status" because orientation and identity are innate, biological, immutable and historically marginalized, while not affecting anyone's ability to work, parent or contribute to society.

  38. Posted March 4, 2012 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

    Sexual orientation and gender identity are like handedness: biological, unchangeable, innocent. We used to think left-handed was evil, as in “sinister” which comes from Latin for "left", force lefties to use their right hand, even though they never really changed handedness.
    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.
    A little extra testosterone secreted from the adrenals during early pregnancy affects the baby girls’ brains causing nearly half to be lesbian, a tenth to be transgender. Also, a girl twin baby simply sharing the womb with a boy co-twin, in which some of his testosterone from his amniotic fluid gets into her blood, causes about one fifth of girl co-twins to be lesbian. These girls also have the bone structure and physical coordination of boys, so they are good in sports, and thus the stereotype.
    The opposite is also true: a bit less testosterone than usual in a boy's blood during early pregnancy can make him light in the loafers or transgender. If a boy's mother has delivered many older brothers before him, which caused her to make blocking antibody to their male proteins, then the youngest brother receives lower levels of testosterone in his blood, resulting in about one fifth of boys with many older brothers being gay. These boys have the physiology and verbal skills and excel in language and visual arts, slightly more like girls, and thus the stereotype.
    Most homosexuals and most heterosexuals will say that they had no choice to be how they are because they were born on the far ends of the spectrum. They firmly claim they were "born that way." But, some straight and gay folks feel it WAS and IS definitely a choice for them because they were born closer to the middle of the biological spectrum between straight and gay: they are bisexual. Their orientations don't change from straight to gay, they simply have brain wiring that attracts them to both. All orientation is hard-wired prenatally and none can change it. It is all biological and innocent, and not contagious or changeable.
    From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is a normal sexual orientation; homosexual relationships are normal relationships.
    The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association have endorsed civil marriage and adoption for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors. Research confirms that the children develop perfectly normally. Even the American Academy of Anthropology has issued a policy statement that says access to civil marriage by same-sex couples will not harm our social order.
    If we are not listening to our established professional experts on this issue of national family health and welfare, then we are simply voting our religious beliefs or personal bias into state and federal laws, and harming the families of gay and lesbian couples, especially those with children.
    America will be more American when all adults can marry the person of their choice.

  39. Posted March 4, 2012 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

    Sexual orientation and gender identity are like handedness: biological, unchangeable, innocent. We used to think left-handed was evil, as in “sinister” which comes from Latin for "left", force lefties to use their right hand, even though they never really changed handedness.
    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.
    A little extra testosterone secreted from the adrenals during early pregnancy affects the baby girls’ brains causing nearly half to be lesbian, a tenth to be transgender. Also, a girl twin baby simply sharing the womb with a boy co-twin, in which some of his testosterone from his amniotic fluid gets into her blood, causes about one fifth of girl co-twins to be lesbian. These girls also have the bone structure and physical coordination of boys, so they are good in sports, and thus the stereotype.
    The opposite is also true: a bit less testosterone than usual in a boy's blood during early pregnancy can make him light in the loafers or transgender. If a boy's mother has delivered many older brothers before him, which caused her to make blocking antibody to their male proteins, then the youngest brother receives lower levels of testosterone in his blood, resulting in about one fifth of boys with many older brothers being gay. These boys have the physiology and verbal skills and excel in language and visual arts, slightly more like girls, and thus the stereotype.
    Most homosexuals and most heterosexuals will say that they had no choice to be how they are because they were born on the far ends of the spectrum. They firmly claim they were "born that way." But, some straight and gay folks feel it WAS and IS definitely a choice for them because they were born closer to the middle of the biological spectrum between straight and gay: they are bisexual. Their orientations don't change from straight to gay, they simply have brain wiring that attracts them to both. All orientation is hard-wired prenatally and none can change it. It is all biological and innocent, and not contagious or changeable.

  40. Randy E King
    Posted March 4, 2012 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    Kate O'Hanlan, MD,

    You are a quack Kate. You have absolutley no scientific data to substantiate your rediculous assertions; your basic anatomy classes should have explained that to you in no uncertain terms.

    SCOTUS has already held same-sex sexual activity to be clearly governable under Rational Basis; that Suspect Class and Heightened Scrutiny is not justifiable. There is absolutley no rational way for SCOTUS to overturn well over one hundred and fifty years of precedence.

    This truth could not have been made any clearer than it was in a 2011 Connecticut Distruct Court finding:

    Based on the Traditional Criteria, Sexual Orientation Clearly Is Not a Suspect or Quasi-Suspect Class.

    The traditional criteria for determining whether a class is suspect or quasisuspect are: (1) whether the class has suffered a history of discrimination; (2) whether the classification at issue relates to one’s “ability to perform or contribute to society,” (3) whether the class at issue is politically powerless; and (4) whether the class demonstrates immutable characteristics. Lyng v. Castillo, 477 U.S. 635, 638 (1986) (holding that “[c]lose relatives are not a suspect or ‘quasi-suspect’ class” because, “[a]s a historical matter, they have not been subjected to discrimination; they do not exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group; and they are not a minority or politically powerless”) (emphasis added); Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 686 (1973) (supporting second factor). Contrary to Plaintiffs’ claim, Pls.’ SJ Reply at 9, 16 n.18, the questions of (1) whether the class is politically powerless and (2) whether a classification involves an immutable
    characteristic are essential to the heightened scrutiny analysis. See Lyng, 477 U.S. at 638; Disabled Am. Veterans v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs , 962 F.2d 136, 141 (2d Cir. 1992).

  41. Bryce K.
    Posted March 4, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    Could someone please answer my question found in post 33?

  42. Paul Mc
    Posted March 4, 2012 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    @Roger -"ton of Moms at the lower end of the Socio-economic scale who become Gay because the Dad is a Deadbeat".

    With assertions like this then your posts should be ignored as worthless.

    Seriously, is this as good as you can do?

  43. Paul Mc
    Posted March 4, 2012 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    @Randy - you answer citing a court case which appears to have little to do with gay persons having immutable characteristics of sexual orientation.

    On the contrary to your hyperbolic claim that Kate has absolutely no evidence, in fact she has written a reasonable summary of the current candidate for proximate causal pathway towards variation in sexual orientation from evidence particularly of the last 10 years. I.e. Australian Twin Registry, functional MRI studies, epidemiological studies and a body of knowledge in the area of animal endocrinology. Science is tiptoeing towards what LBGT people have always known about themselves, that they are a normative variant of sexual orientation with a characteristic of immutability from some base substrate of our neurology.

    I'm always glad when you post since your intellectual paucity gives me clear hope that we will get equal rights soon enough!

  44. mary
    Posted March 4, 2012 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    Kate, please google and read "Health Risks of Gay Sex" by John Diggs, MD and then tell me it's normal.

  45. Randy E King
    Posted March 4, 2012 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    Paul MC,

    One hundred and fifty years of court precedence may appear to have little to do with a shallow immutability claim to you in light of highly suspect theoretical abnormalites presented by an individual with a pronounced bias, but I assure you the noted court finding is based on irrefutable scientific fact that was gleaned from well over a century of higher court holdings.

    Bryce K.

    Successful socities are never built on theoretical abnormalities.

  46. AM
    Posted March 4, 2012 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

    Paul Mc
    If there are demonstrable structural differences in the brain of homosexuals that are proven to be the result of hormonal/endocrine events in utero...
    Gay rights activists will not be the only people who will find this a plus.

    Biological determinism robs us of our free will and ultimately our humanity.

  47. Posted March 4, 2012 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

    Mary, all unsafe sex is unsafe!!!
    Helllloooooo!!!!
    Straight people have unsafe sex. too. And what happens when they do??????

    There are 5 million unintended pregnancies every year. Straight people kill one third of those babies, and deliver the rest of the children into unhappy households, often deserted by the father.

    Plus, over 10 million heterosexual women are infected by heterosexual men with the HPV virus every year, causing high-grade pre-cancer of the cervix in 300,000 women, and 15,000 cases of cervical cancer annually, of whom one third will die.

    Straight men give straight women 600,000 cases of chlamydia and 150,000 cases of gonorrhea yearly, causing prolonged hospitalizations, sterility and even death in many cases.

    It is not the sexual orientation of the vector, it is the unsafe exposure, get it, Mary?

  48. Posted March 4, 2012 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

    Randy,
    You clearly have no access to scientific publications or you would never have written what you wrote.

    If you want to learn some science about sexual orientation and gender identity, visit my lecture to the AMA at:
    http://media01.commpartners.com/AMA/sexual_identity_jan_2011/index.html

  49. John Noe
    Posted March 4, 2012 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

    Posts #37 through #39 spout off the same lies that the homosexuals always use. Doing everything possible to avoid responsibility for their behavior they continue to spout off the lie that they were born that way WITH NO BIOLOGICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER...

    (1) There are thousands upon thousands of ex homsexuals out there who were able to change the way they were. Clearly not born that way. There now is an organization for ex gays.
    (2) Twins usually have identical DNA's. However it has been shown if one is homosexual the other is not. They cannot account for this.
    (3) The only way genes and born traits pass on is through human reproduction. However these people practice a form of conduct that insures there will be no reproduction. Their DNA dies when they die.

    Remember: Any born that way claim would have to have indisputable micro-biological DNA evidence that it is indeed in the genes the same way that eyes and ears are. They have none.

  50. Ash
    Posted March 4, 2012 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

    Great post, Roger in comment #35. It's always good to be reminded that decades ago the academic establishment claimed that divorce didn't harm children and single parent families were better than married families. Real research has shown this to be false. Remembering this helps us to see through the inadequate body of literature which declares same-sex parenting a smashing success--flawed studies which purport to overthrow decades of rigorous research showing that the married-biological family is best for children.

  51. 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.

  52. 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.

  53. 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.

  54. 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.

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

    You obviously didn't read the article.

  56. 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"

  57. 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?

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

    Well that's awkward.

  59. 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.

  60. 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.

  61. 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.

  62. 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.

  63. 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.

  64. 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!!

  65. 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.

  66. 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?

  67. 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.

  68. 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.

  69. 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.

  70. 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.

  71. 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.