New Study: Married Biological Parents Best


Marriage Watch / Maggie Gallagher

A new government study just came out that looks at child abuse. 

Question: What kind of family structure best protects children from child abuse?

Answer: Married biological parents. (see page 5-25).

All the other family structures studied (which does not include same-sex parent families probably because these are such a small part of the population), but does include solo parents, other married parents (remarried primarily), single parents living with a partner, cohabiting parents, and no parents. 

The big gap is between the intact married biological family and every other family form. Children living with both their mom and dad united by marriage have  one-third the rate of serious child abuse, compared to children in any other family structure. 

Here's my question for Ted and David as they strive to prove that Science Says same-sex unions are just like opposite-sex ones, when it comes to children.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps alone of all the family structures science has ever studied, children living with same-sex couples do just as well as children in intact married families.  (Perhaps that is true even though your own expert witness admits there is no research on gay male families and child outcomes, and there is no nationally representative study that follows children raised from birth to adulthood by same-sex outcomes and compares how they do to children in other family forms ).


But does this study, which is one of hundreds with similar results favoring the natural family give  Ted Olson and David Boies pause late at night as they assert the scientific irrationality of respect for the natural family at all I wonder?  Ted and David, I'm wondering: not even a little bit?


  1. David
    Posted January 28, 2010 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

    Whoever wrote this is a total idiot!!!!!! Are you now going to take every adoption agency and parents that have adopted children to court to say they're promoting child abuse? If you don't plan on it, then everything you've said about us, and by that I mean the homosexual population of the world, is DISCREDITED BY YOUR OWN WORDS AND ACTIONS. Your article is total bs. What goves boies and Olson and homosexuals and heterosexuals across the globe pause is that you have the guts to demean homosexual headed households as well as foster parents, adoptive parents, and in turn foster children and kids that have been adopted. We get what you're daying: if you 're not a 100% pure biological family unti then you aren't as good as those that are and therefore don't deserve the things we take for granted. Really? That's rich.

    You have no real intrest in "preserving" marriage or "protecting" children. Outlaw divorce with a referrendum or initiative and see how far that gets. Set up any child molestor up on death row with an initiative or referrendum. Remove the rights of those incarcerated to marry and individual who isn't.

    Wtihout doing these things you guys look like nothing other than homophobic bigots who as adults want nothing more than to say to another adult, "I have something that you don't! I have it and you don't! Nanny-Nanny-Boo-Boo!"

    Good luck with that one.

    I dare you to visit your local gay bar this weekend and trot your message into those establishments and see what happens. I'd pay to see what happens to you!!!!!!!!

  2. David
    Posted January 28, 2010 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

    Here's my question to Maggie:

    Do you think you'd be so apt to spread hate if you had to do it every day person to person and face to face with homosexuals and their familys?

  3. David
    Posted January 28, 2010 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

    If you'd like to discuss the "moderation" of these posts I'd be more than happy to meet you somewhere and talk it over if you're ready to stand by your convictions face to face with the people you're demonizing.

  4. David
    Posted January 28, 2010 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

    Maggie, would you like to meet somewhere and talk this over. Coffee? Dinner, you clearly like to eat, I'll even pay for it.

    Here's another idea: Call Oprah and see if you can get yourself and nom reps on her show and debate your schtick against a panel of homosexuals, scientists, reps from the apa, ama, the other apa-kids, etc. They'd tear you a new one and you would have to be removed from studio floor with a spackle and or puddy knife. Try teh View and see what happens there.

  5. David
    Posted January 28, 2010 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

    We are always going to be here, Maggie. Homosexuals will never cease to be, and nothing you ever say or do will change that! We will be here with HARD PROOF AND EVIDENCE that you and your lik are nothing but spreaders of lies, homophobes and insecure bullys.

    You have the guts to talk about the best interests of children regarding marriage. Girl, when this blows over, you are going to have a hell of a time in this life.

  6. TC Matthews
    Posted January 28, 2010 at 9:25 pm | Permalink


    Is this your idea of a refutation of the study?

  7. Adam
    Posted January 28, 2010 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

    Sheesh David, Perhaps take a second thought before you post. Maggie is not speaking here. She just passing on a government study. You have done nothing to refute it.

  8. Jim
    Posted January 28, 2010 at 10:36 pm | Permalink

    I don't think anyone disputes the idea that, (barring abuse, alcoholism, etc) it is best for children to be raised by their biological parents. However, I have not seen any information that allowing gay marriage will prevent children from being by their biological. It's not like anyone is going to take children from their families and give them to gay couples.

    I might also ask that people consider the many thousands of children living in foster care. The studies show that children raised in loving gay homes do just as well as kids raised by straight parents. However, kids who are raised to age 18 in state custody are mush worse off than kids raised with loving, forever families.

    As you oppose gay marriage and gay adoption, please consider the trouble teen who has spend his/her whole life moving from one foster home to another without anyone ever really loving them.

  9. Kim
    Posted January 28, 2010 at 10:49 pm | Permalink

    Another very interesting thing is that employed parents are less abusive than unemployed parents. What can we do about that?

    Same for low economic status versus high economic status. What should we do about that?

    What about the number of children? Two seems to be the best number, with the lowest rates? Should we limit families to two children?

    What about rural areas? Child abuse is much higher there, should we force people with children to live in larger cities because of that?

    And then there is the elephant in the room that was not discussed, namely how some of these factors are going together. For example, divorce is much higher among people with drug problems (risk factor for abuse), mental illness (same) etc, and so, comparing the data of biological parents with other two parents arrangements is misleading without correcting for those aspects.

  10. MaryAnn
    Posted January 28, 2010 at 11:49 pm | Permalink

    Children do best with a mother and father, why do gay and lesbians want to deny this fundamental right to a child? They want to make non-marriage marriage, they say they have feelings, just a like a teenager whose parents won't tell them no. Well, I'll say here, NO means NO. Marriage is between a man and an woman, learn to control your feelings and be and adult.

  11. TC Matthews
    Posted January 29, 2010 at 12:13 am | Permalink

    Jim, if gay couples were only interested in adopting teenage children with no prospects of a mother/father relationship in their lives, you might have a point. If however, we go down the path you suggest and hold up same sex couples as an ideal, equal to the marriage ideal, you may very well have (as there are currently) increasing numbers of situations where a baby is wanted by families who can provide both a mom and a dad, but are denied the opportunity to adopt that child because the social worker wants to seem politically correct and chooses a lesbian couple instead. What are we really saying here? Does gender matter at all?

  12. Posted January 29, 2010 at 3:03 am | Permalink

    SSMers change the topic. The content of this study is the topic. I see there has been no pause by the SSMers who have rushed to change the topic.

    Marriage includes the set of principles and practices that together are known as Responsible Procreation.

    The first principle of Responsible Procreation is, pretty much what Jim acknowledged upthread: "that, (barring abuse, alcoholism, etc) it is best for children to be raised by their biological parents."

    This is embedded in our marriage laws. See the marital presumption of paternity, which is vigorously enforced. It is part and parcel of that to which people give consent when they enter marriage and when society consents to according the social institution its special status.

    That is about channeling human procreative behavior toward certain goods. It is not about homosexuality or gayness. Marraige is the relatively non-cocerive means by which the solidarity of fatherhood and motherhood is made normative for all of society.

    This is demonstrated by the overflow effect on unwed cohabitation and other forms of nonmarital procreation. The principles of Responsible Procreation work best within the social institution that is our most pro-child institution. There would be no overflow effect outside of marriage if the source of that effect is abolished in the law and in the culture.

    The marriage idea is simple, but difficult for people to aspire toward if it is derided as bigoted; it is made far more difficult when Government is enlisted to ostracize and marginalize the core meaning of marriage AND those who defend its societal signficance from generation to generation. SSM argumentation pushes for pressing this into the constitution and making those difficulties a mandate for Government interventions.

    Can people procreate outside of marriage, and does society intrude to tear those children from the arms of their parents? No. That is not the purpose of marriage laws nor of the marriage amendment.

    Why would SSMers imagine that was the purpose? I dunno, maybe due to the SSM campaign's political animus against marriage defenders.

  13. Adam
    Posted January 29, 2010 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    What I think is at stake is not that Gay couples can be good parents. We concede they can be. We argue that it is in the best interest of children to have a mother and a father, and I believe you concede that point. In California, they are claiming we voted irrationally. That there is no good reason to vote for traditional marriage, that we were somehow biased or didn't vote with a smart decision. The article here points out traditional marriage offers the benefits and shows there is an interest in and logical reason to vote for marriage.

  14. Alex
    Posted January 29, 2010 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

    I am looking over the study and although it does seem to classify Married Biological (both) Parents differently from Married Adoptive Parents, I can't find any chart that compares the abuse between the two.
    Every chart at the end is "Married Biological" vs. "All other types". That includes unmarried relationships, non-adoptive step-parents, etc.

    Most studies show that married parents are better than unmarried parents - neither side is disputing that. So I'd like to see the chart that distinguishes between married parents, purely on biological basis, instead of lumping in the others.

    If you could please list the chart in the study, or page reference that explicitly shows the difference between those two categories, that would be helpful (I'm certainly curious to see what kind of difference we're talking about)

  15. Christopher Eberz
    Posted January 29, 2010 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

    What does this have to do with marriage or Prop 8?

    Seriously, this is an honest question. Gays and lesbians will always exist, their relationships will always exist, and their families will always exist, regardless of whether or not they can be legally married.

    Prop 8 didn't change *anything* about the reality of the existence of same-sex couples and their families. It never will.

    If same-sex marriage is illegal, same-sex families will exist. If same-sex marriage is legal, same-sex families will exist.

    If anything, this study makes an argument for *granting* marriage to these couples for the benefit of their families.

  16. TC Matthews
    Posted January 29, 2010 at 2:46 pm | Permalink


    This study goes to the heart of what is best for children. Gay activists preach the ideology that gender is irrelevant, but studies don't concur with that supposition.

  17. Adam
    Posted January 29, 2010 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

    Drugs will always exist too. Hmm. Lets legalize drugs. If drugs exist so will medicine. If anything this makes for an argument for granting drugs freely to everyone.

  18. Chairm
    Posted January 29, 2010 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    The marriage law, and the marriage amendment, discriminate between marriage and nonmarriage.

    There is no gay criterion for ineligibility and no straight criterion for eligibility. SSMers have conceded that during the bench trial in Sacramento these past weeks.

    SSMers can offer no justification for imposing special status for SSM that does not immediately depend on disparaging the special reason for the special status of marriage.

    The SSM-merger would change marriage for all of society -- including the millions of people already married. The Government would then be forced to treat all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husbands or wives.

    The SSM-merger has no sexual basis, at law, and the SSM campaign seeks to enlist the power of Government to wipe the core meaning from the culture. The over-reach is remarkably anti-social and deeply contrary to the principles of good governance.

    That is exemplified by the SSMers here who have rushed to change the subject from the content of the study discussed in the blogpost at the top of this discussion.

    Question: What kind of family structure best protects children from child abuse?

    Answer: Married biological parents. (see page 5-25).

    See the core meaning of marriage. See the legal marital presumption of paternity. See integration of the sexes. See these combined as a coherent whole.

    SSM, even by their rules of arugmentation invoked by the advocates of this merger, is an incoherent shambles. It is a bundle of bits and pieces that rest in the arms of identity politics and nothing else. That is why SSMers want to push SSM up onto the back of marriage for a free ride.

    It is like the scorpion riding the frog across the river. They cannot help themselves.

    Cue their change of topic comments ...

  19. MaryAnn
    Posted January 29, 2010 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

    The rights of gays and lesbians must give way to society's interest in promoting traditional families. Data from the Netherlands shows results of the homosexual agenda with fewer heterosexual marriages and more divorces and one-parent households when marriage includes same sex couples. This "we have feelings for each other theory" conflicts with every child's right to have a mother and father. Marriage is a socially approved sexual relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of nurturing children.

  20. MaryAnn
    Posted January 29, 2010 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps Chairm can explain why there are no laws that bar the following marriages below:

    "that, (barring abuse, alcoholism, etc) it is best for children to be raised by their biological parents.”

    It is not strange that there are no laws that bar people that don't even know each other from marriage. The only requirement is that they be opposite sex. So is their faulty logic here? I think not, we voted rationally in California, even though there are other leaks in the dam so to speak.

  21. Janice
    Posted January 29, 2010 at 11:42 pm | Permalink

    My name is Janice Small and I am a high school senior here in California. I am also being raised by my two loving dads and have decided to speak out because of the amount of hate that's been directed at us and my parents in particular. Throughout life they have loved me unconditionally, taught me the difference between right and wrong, cheered me up when life is at its lowest, provided for me, protected me, and let me know that I am never alone and always #1. If you guys really want to protect the best interests of children, then why do you guys ignore us? My family is the most important thing in my life and it pains me to know that there are people and organizations out there that are encouraging others to treat us differently (which HURTS more than ANYTHING), to keep my family from becoming a stronger unit in the eyes of the law, and telling everyone that I am better off in a house with two people of the opposite sex instead of a house with two people WHO LOVE ME. You do NOT know what's best for me, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW ME. Everything you guys claim is all speculation and until more of us speak out I fear you will continue to spread lies to serve your own selfish bigoted agenda under the guise that it's for protecting kids like me. I can't understand why anyone would want to keep my family from having legal protections and the right to live our lives the way we want so long as we are not hurting anyone. Although my parents are committed to me and each other, I want to know my parents' union will forever be recognized and protected under the law and that only happens with marriage. Invading our lives by preventing them from getting married is not only un-American, it just seems inhumane. You guys have brought nothing but hurt and hate into our lives, creating an environment where other young kids think it's perfectly acceptable to denigrate me and my family and it is ruining my life. STAY OUT OF MY LIFE AND MY FAMILY'S LIFE. We just want to be left alone and be given the opportunity to protect ourselves like every other family. PLEASE STOP THIS NONSENSE!!!

  22. Posted January 30, 2010 at 12:19 am | Permalink

    Janice, thanks for your post. It's very heartfelt.

    I believe that families are best with a mom AND a dad. That is what I'm working for, to keep society's ideal the natural family, because kids and families matter to me more than anything else, and I care what happens to the family in our society.

    That has nothing to do with you or the choices your parents made. No one should try to make you feel less than you are. If they do, I hope you're strong enough to know better.

    If you live in California and your parents have a domestic partnership, their relationship is already recognized equally with marriage by the state.

    Do you mind if I ask you a question? You obviously have strong feelings on the issue. What is it that you think you're being denied? and how do you think those who disagree with homosexuality can uphold marriage between a man and a woman without offending you?

  23. Chairm
    Posted January 30, 2010 at 3:07 am | Permalink

    MaryAnn, I have affirmed the opposite-sexed basis of marriage and I endorse the marriage amendment of Califorinia. It is highly defensible within the context of the US Constitution.

    In light of what I have just said here, could you please restate your question. I really don't understand what you were asking, actually.

  24. Chairm
    Posted January 30, 2010 at 3:27 am | Permalink


    You made your description of yourself the basis for your comment.

    People who masquerade usually trip themselves up, eventually. I do not accuse you of that. And I doubt anyone would bother to try to verify what you said. Your word, at face value, applies here.

    However, would you please confirm, on the record, the general context -- that you are a high school senior, living in a household with two men, both of whom are legally your co-equal parents?

    That done, it would be best to focus on the issues rather than overexpose your personal or private details. The internet is not the place for that. It is perfectly good to express your emotions and your thoughts without divulging further intimate specifics.

    Let your parents read your comments, perhaps, and keep in mind that it is better to resist the temptation to allow contentious public discussions to become hyper personalized.

    Thanks and Good Luck.

  25. Posted January 30, 2010 at 3:33 am | Permalink

    Chairm, it looks like Janice is a fake. She posted her story on NOM facebook, every thread she could---claiming of course that everyone was censoring her "truth". Turns out, it's a fake profile, created for the sole purpose of ringing people in.

    It's kind of sad really.

  26. TC Matthews
    Posted January 30, 2010 at 3:36 am | Permalink

    No way! Fake? I'm shocked. I think Chairm may have suspected, but you seem to have taken her at face value. I hate getting my emotions yanked just for fun.

  27. MaryAnn
    Posted January 30, 2010 at 6:38 am | Permalink


    My question had to your thoughts about why there are no marriage bans for two opposite sex child molesting couples, alcoholics or abusers. We all agree that same sex couples will destroy the institution of marriage.
    And Janice, I feel for you, but your parents made a choice, that laws were not in place to protect your situation from happening.

  28. MaryAnn
    Posted January 30, 2010 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

    Allowing gays and lesbians to wed will hasten the deinstitutionalization of marriage that strated a half-century ago with liberalized divorce laws and increasing adultery and cohabitation.

    Also Chairm, your quote below comes up a lot. Could you provide 7 or 8 specific legal reasons describing how so?

    "I endorse the marriage amendment of Califorinia. It is highly defensible within the context of the US Constitution."

  29. Elliot
    Posted January 30, 2010 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

    L. Marie says: "If you live in California and your parents have a domestic partnership, their relationship is already recognized equally with marriage by the state."

    Marie, if domestic partnerships and marriage are equal, then why do they need separate names? Isn't this just another form of "separate but equal"?

    Imagine for a moment, that it's 1955 and you're a bus driver trying to explain to Rosa Parks that she's still getting a ride to wherever she's going, and that it really doesn't matter whether or not she's in the back or the front of the bus.

    Imagine someone telling you that it isn't discrimination when they single you out for being gay and put you and your lover into a different category of people because they feel that you're going to taint their marriage if you're allowed to have one.

    I should hope that you'd be just as indignant as I am if you were in my shoes.

  30. Posted January 30, 2010 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

    "Marie, if domestic partnerships and marriage are equal, then why do they need separate names? Isn’t this just another form of “separate but equal”?"

    Eliot, you would be correct that separate is not equal with regard to race because race has no bearing on value. With behavioral choices however, that is not the case. Marriage is not identical to SSM, they are very different. Do apples and oranges take offense at having unique characteristics? Celebrate your differences if you feel they ought to be celebrated! Gay activists come on here all the time saying how proud they are to have chosen the life they lead. Be proud then! Be unique! Don't try to label yourself as something else.

    Can't we be equal and also unique?

  31. Elliot
    Posted January 30, 2010 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

    "behavioral choices"? Am I to understand that by saying this, you mean to put across the idea that you believe all people determine who they are and are not attracted to by making conscious and sober mental determinations? You're absolutely sure? Do you have any evidence or credible study that can back up your claim?

    "Do apples and oranges take offense at having unique characteristics?"

    Apples and oranges are not people, and therefore haven't the capacity for taking offense.

    "Celebrate your differences if you feel they ought to be celebrated! Gay activists come on here all the time saying how proud they are to have chosen the life they lead. Be proud then! Be unique! Don’t try to be something you’re not."

    I think we both know that this isn't simply a labeling issue anymore than designating "straight only" and "gay only" restaurants is a labeling issue. Does it really matter that both restrooms are identical down to the last faucet? No. What matters is that there is no compelling reason to install two separate faucets other than to single out a group of people for discriminatory reasons.

  32. Posted January 30, 2010 at 10:05 pm | Permalink

    Elliot, I know it goes against your dogma, but humor me for just a moment. Do you sincerely believe there is no difference between Marriage and SSM? I can actually think of quite a few differences.... We're not talking about macintosh and red delicious here, we're talking apples and oranges. SSM is fundamentally different on many levels that have nothing to do with belief. Trying to pretend otherwise just undermines your credibility and highlights your insecurity with the lifestyle you've chosen.

  33. Chairm
    Posted January 31, 2010 at 1:01 am | Permalink

    MaryAnn asked, why are there "no marriage bans for two opposite sex child molesting couples, alcoholics or abusers."

    When SSMers talk of such things, their rhetoric belies a false dichotomy: Either we find some way to accurately forecast very bad behavior, or we must gut marriage of its core meaning. This rhetoric might be described as a scorched earth policy.

    The vast majority of people who marry do not commit such crimes. A license to marry is neither an advanced license for nor societal approval of horrendous behavior.

    Nor is a license to marry a license for nonmarriage. So both parts of the SSMer's dichotomy are absurdities.

    * * *

    Society does draw lines for eligiblity based on statutory rape laws and incest laws. We also empower state agencies to remove children where warranted. We empower our legal system to intervene and to protect abused wives (and husbands). The marriage idea itself makes normative the co-equal responsiblity of parents toward their children and towards one another. When that is betrayed, marital status does not absolve the criminal behavior or does it immunize the perpetrators.

    Convicted child molestors are restricted in contact with children, including their own, regardless of marital status. And this sort of thing certainly does provide grounds for divorce and for forced relinquishment of parental status.

    Addictions and spousal abuse are grounds for divorce and in some places also grounds for annulment. Also, these, like convictions for violent crimes, are grounds for deciding child custody disputes and for imposing closely restricted access to children or denying access. A marriage license is not a license to continue to commit such crimes.

    Criminal records can and do show up in the application process for marriage licenses. Prospective spouses are entitled to know of such things; fraudulently hiding this can be gronds for annulment -- i.e. the marriage is null as if it never existed.

    I think convictions for heinous crimes -- including child and/or spousal abuse -- should be used to draw ineligiblity lines for marriage. However, we also have to take into account activist courts which can make and have made some pretty lousy rulings.

    When SSMers talk about molestors and addicts, their rhetoric incudes those who commit these acts but who have not been convicted or even arrested.

    We do not empower government to screen people through some sort of psychological testing. But that is the sort of totalitarian notion that would logically follow the SSM rhetoric on this.

    They use the same basic rhetorical tactic when they complain that society does not use some sort of intrusive means by which to determine if a couple will experience infertlity. If you think about it, such a system would require that the married couple engage in lots and lots of premarital sexual behavior, conceive together and carry to birth, at least one child. But even with such draconian measures, the line would be drawn based on somethng that remains extrinsic to all one-sexed arrangements. So the pro-SSM rhetoric is revealed to be yet another instance of scorched earth policy.

    I don't take it seriously and neither do they, actually. It is just smoke and mirrors on their part.

    We issue marriage licenses and accord special status for marriage, not for nonmarriage. That's the short answer.

  34. Chairm
    Posted January 31, 2010 at 1:10 am | Permalink


    You asked for reasons that the marriage amendment of Califorinia is highly defensible within the context of the US Constitution.

    I ask, how is it not?

    SSMers fail to make an argument based on the merits of whatever are the essentials of SSM; but instead they appeal to gay identity politics, ideologically driven sociological speculations, and the abuse of judicial review.

    Those are the big and most obvious reasons that the valid amendment is defensible within the framework of the US Constitution.

    If you scan through the various discussions here in the comment sections of the NOM blog (and also at The Opine Editorials), a lot of what you are asking for is already described and scrutinized.

    Hope that is of some help.

  35. Ray
    Posted January 31, 2010 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    Chairm claims: "We do not empower government to screen people through some sort of psychological testing. But that is the sort of totalitarian notion that would logically follow the SSM rhetoric on this.

    The oddity of this assertion is that Prop 8's attorneys made their case central to procreative purpose of marriage in their petition for summary judgement. In addressing that focus, Judge Walker pointed out that claiming procreation as the purpose for marriage, or limiting the purpose for marriage to procreative purposes, would make it necessary to do the very screening that Chairm says naturally follows the Plaintiffs position but in fact is the logical extension of Proponents narrowly defined purpose for marriage.

    If you hold that marriage is for the exclusive purpose of procreation and then seek to enforce that purpose, screening would obviously the means of enforcement necessitated by a narrow definition that Proponents argued is the *only* purpose of marriage.

    Understand that this definition was championed by Prop 8, not Plaintiffs. Plaintiff's embraced the full range of important reason people get married and that embrace, by definition, would preclude or eliminate screening.

    Since Judge Walker, and every other American, is aware that people have several important reason for marrying and that any couple does not to ALL the reasons to come to the decision to unite in marriage, that actually FORCED Judge Walker to deny Proponents petition for summary judgement. Well, that and about 15 other major discrepancies in Proponents argument.

    The trial occurred because of the unsoundness of Proponents theory of the purpose for marriage. If allowed to stand, THEN the natural evolution of the "procreation" argument would give rise to the necessity for screening individuals.

  36. Elliot
    Posted January 31, 2010 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

    “Elliot, I know it goes against your dogma,”

    Dogma? I’m not sure I appreciate the accusation, but I’d be interested to know why you think that I’m not being objective in my reasoning.

    “Do you sincerely believe there is no difference between Marriage and SSM?”

    Apart from the gender of the two parties agreeing to the marriage? No, I can think of nothing about any given same sex couple that is not also true of at least some opposite sex couples. Can you?

    “I can actually think of quite a few differences.”

    I’d love to hear them, if you don’t mind sharing.

  37. fundie
    Posted January 31, 2010 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

    I am not an Attorney - but this is my condensed understanding of the legal battle for Marriage.

    Judges apply 1 of 3 levels of Scrutiny to determine if a Law is Constitutional.

    1) Rational Basis –Used 90% of the time – Government Action need only be rationaly related to a legitimate interest. If the court applies this level of scrutiny, it’s highly likely 1Man/1 Women Marriage will stand. Courts in NY, WA ruled on this basis to sustain marriage.

    2) Intemediate Scrutiny – Used if a law discriminates on Sex – the Governmnent action must be “Substantially” related to an “Important” state interest. This is the one activist courts love, since Substantial and Important can be pretty subjective.

    3) Strict Scrutiny – Is used if a law Discriminates on Race OR infringes on a Fundamental Right. To be Consitutional, the Law must be narrowly tailored for a compelling state intrest. 1Man/1 Women Marriage would never stand this level of Scrutiny.

    Since the 60’s LGBTQ’s have been working very hard to equate their behavior with Black Civil rights. A “Suspect Class”, like race, has 4 requirements:1) Insular Minority 2) History of Discrimination 3) Immutablity 4) Politically Powerless. All 4 have to be proven, and only 1 or 2 courts have accepted this line of reasoning. The Supreme Court explicitly denied Suspect Class protections for LGBTQ’s, even when ruling in their favor in Lawrenece v. Texas and Romer v. Evans. Anne Heche or Civil Unions are all that are needed to disprove this line of Argument.

    The Marriage is a Fundamental Right argument is pretty weak too. Any arbitrary defintion that would allow Same Sex Marriage would also allow Polygamy and Incest. Also when ever the SCOTUS declared Marriage a Fundamental Right – they cited cases that were about Procreation – which really is a Fundamental right. No society on earth has ever equated Hetero and Homosexual relationships and even The United Nations Declaration of Universal Human Rights defines Marriage as man and women.

    Most of the Arguments put forth by LGBTQ’s are not legal – but social – "we're as Good As You", or try to point out logical inconsitancies in the law. But Laws do not have to be perfectly consistant to be constitutional, or narrowly tailored to meet a state objective - only substantially related to an important interest.

    This NIS-4 Study is huge, as it quantifies how much Marriage really protects Children for Abuse and Neglect. With respect to Prop 8, Judge Vaughn Walker will have to say Child Abuse and Neglect is not an important state interest, or that a 3x reduction in Abuse/Neglect is not substantial.

  38. fundie
    Posted January 31, 2010 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

    Elliot wrote
    I can think of nothing about any given same sex couple that is not also true of at least some opposite sex couples. Can you?"

    No. But I can think of one HUGE concern for opposite sex couples, that NEVER applies to same sex couples. Birthcontrol.

  39. Posted February 1, 2010 at 1:26 am | Permalink

    Elliot, there are no differences apart from gender? You say that so cavalierly, yet the differences between one gender and another are huge. You honestly can't see the difference between men and women? How they look, how they respond, how they act and behave? Physically they are different, behaviorally they are different, emotionally they are different. They belong to the same species, but seriously, the differences are numerous and varied. People's gender contributes to their uniqueness, and the bringing together of these complimentary beings has the potential for creating something completely unique to that union. Life. Why would you want society to ignore all the intricate beauty of our race?

  40. Mary Ann, Singing Mum
    Posted February 1, 2010 at 3:49 am | Permalink

    It is kind of sad that Janice's story is a fake, if that's true. I mean, um, a true fake.

    There are now stories coming out from young adults who were raised by two men or two women, and denied either a father or a mother. They're not all happy, not by a longshot. I think they'll be a powerful witness to activists who think they can redefine family with no fallout.

    Honestly, how schizophrenic is it to support fatherhood programs, etc., and then turn around and live out 'dads aren't needed' by supporting two women raising kids?

    LMarie, I love your comments. Couldn't agree more with this excerpt-
    "Gay activists come on here all the time saying how proud they are to have chosen the life they lead. Be proud then! Be unique! Don’t try to label yourself as something else."

  41. Emma
    Posted February 1, 2010 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    Maybe someone has already pointed out this rather obvious fact, but given that same-sex marriage is a relatively new institution in this country, it is not possible to compare the well-being of children in this type of marriage as opposed to opposite-sex marriages.

    Does this study prove that child abuse rates are higher in same-sex married families than they are in opposite-sex married families? I suppose this type of comparison could be done in Massachusetts, where gay couples have had the right to marry for almost six years now, but that's not a particularly large or impressive sample.

    Until it is proven that same-sex marriages increase the chance of child-abuse (and that seems very unlikely), spreading misleading arguments like this is both irresponsible and dangerous.

    Besides, even if (and that is a huge if) children turn out best being raised in "biological married" homes, why does NOM focus on stopping gay couples from marrying? Many more children are raised in homes of divorced parents, widowed parents, single parents, and yet you don't focus on banning divorce, or banning single women from having children. Why the pre-occupation with the gays?

  42. Chairm
    Posted February 1, 2010 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

    Ray, you, like Judge Walker, misrepresented responsible procreation.

    The question is not about the personal motivations but rather about the public reason for licensing and according the social institution its special status.

    Gayness just does not reach the level of societal significance of the combination of responsible procreation and sex integration.

    Neither does the assertion of infinitely variable personal motivations.

  43. Chairm
    Posted February 1, 2010 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    Ray, the opposite-sexed sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity is part and parcel of what people consent to when they enter the social institution that the government, on behalf of society, recognizes with licensing and special status.

    Marriage law is not a totalitarian system even though its sexual basis and social basis is extrinsic to the SSM idea.

    Projecting a totalitarian impulse onto marriage belies the corruptive influence of the driving force of the SSM campaign: namely, the assertion of supremacy via gay identity politics.

    That comes as no big surprise since that assertion is closely analogous with the supremacy asserted by racialist identity politics in the past. That was repudiated and now SSMers would revive it and press their own identity politics into marriage law.

    And so rather than accurately acknowledge the core meaning of marriage -- including responsible procreation -- SSMers project onto marriage the very thing that it as at the heart of the SSM campaign itself.

    SSMers, overall, are well-intentioned. And they might really believe that gay identity politics is more benign than the racialist identity politics of the anti-miscegenation system, but both forms of identity politics selectively segregate the sexes and undermine responsible procreation -- by using marriage for a nonmarriage purpose.

    Marriage does not organize society by identity groups.

  44. Chairm
    Posted February 1, 2010 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    Fundie, that is a good summary.

    I think that by objective criteria, the core meaning of marriage would pass all three levels of scrutiny.

    The practical difficulty is as you hinted: the use of heightened scrutiny invites an increasingly subjective assessment by individual Justices and that invites the abuse of judicial review.

    The starting place is the special reason for special status of marriage. That goes to its core meaning -- the essentials without which marriage would not be different from nonmarriage.

    Based on that core meaning, societies may discriminate between marriage and other stuff. And it is on that basis that the eligiblity lines -- the boundaries drawn around the core -- can be justified. Each society has to respond to the core of marriage one way or another.

    The SSM campaign is basically insisting that society turn a blind eye to that core meaning and instead bestow special status for gayness.

    But the logic of that would produce favoritism for a subset of the broad nonmarriage category of relationship types and arrrangements. Most families that are outside of marriage are NOT part of the gay identity group. Equality of protections is one thing. Special status based on gayness, quite another.

    Amongst the range of nonmarriage arrangements, protection equality would be reasonable -- AND would pass the rigors of objective constitutional analysis. To treat SSM as more worthy would necessitate subjective application of "equality" -- in other words overt favoritism.

    So, in any law that would merge SSM with marriage the lines of eligiblity would be weakened, if not immediately destroyed, because the merger would negate the core meaning of marriage for no other reason than it is extrinsic to the SSM idea. No core, no justification for special status; no justificaton for drawing boundaries between marriage and the rest of nonmarriage.

    Gay identity politics just does not stand up as a big enough reason to treat SSM differently from the rest of nonmarriage.

    This is the basic reason that the SSM campaign refuses to make SSM stand up on its own two feet. They hope to attach it to marriage and get a free ride.

    But, as L. Marie pointed out, and as Mary Ann reiterated, if gayness is of such huge societal signficance, then, make the independent case for a gaycentric type of relationship for which society might issue licensing and accord special status.

    What is so special about gayness?

    That's the question raised by the SSM argumentation, actually, even though they keep attacking the core of marriage with the absurd notion that, in effect and in principle, there is nothing special about marriage.

  45. Posted February 1, 2010 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

    Emma, If you read the content of the actual post, what is being said is that biological families are a known win for humanity. No matter the standard, intact biological, natural human families are the best for kids, hands down, no question. Every study confirms it.

    The gay activist rhetoric, and I say gay activist, because not every person with SSA tries to say this, but the activists trying to change society's standards without scientific background do, the gay activist rhetoric would have you believe on principle only that the natural family is not the only successful model, that two men can raise a daughter just the same as her mom and dad can.

    That isn't true for any other nonmarriage category out there, as is shown by this study. So, why would the gay activist rhetoric demand socetal change without the evidence to back it up?

    We know what works. It's up to gay activists to present the evidence, and as of yet, they have not been able to do so.

    I guess that's why we get the Gavin Newsom types that try to force change through judicial fiat. They don't have the science to back up the theory.

  46. Kevin K. Kline
    Posted February 1, 2010 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

    Dear Satan's Spawn Sister:
    Hearing such ignorant, hate filled speech makes one think of another famous person who said, The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality. Today Christians stand at the head of our country. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit. We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press – in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past years.

    Who said this? Pat Robertson? Sarah Palin? Rick Warren? James Dobson? No, those are the words of Adolf Hitler.
    The continued lies, hate, fear-mongering and bigotry only serve to continue to discredit you and your Cults of Jesus. Keep up the great work.

  47. TC Matthews
    Posted February 1, 2010 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

    Kevin, I'm not sure who you are referring to with your derogatory remarks, but what is your point besides just making yourself look foolish?

  48. Posted February 1, 2010 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    Satan’s Spawn Sister? Really? Wow.

  49. Emma
    Posted February 1, 2010 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

    Dear L. Marie,

    I'm not arguing that biological families aren't great, but rather that it is not up to the State to allow only that which is ideal. (If we only wanted to legalize ideal marriages, after all, we would have to do away with Las Vegas, Britney Spears, shotgun weddings, etc!)

    Honestly, what would make the most sense is for government to get out of the marriage business entirely. Let the institution of "marriage" be a religious thing, and let the institution of "civil unions" be a legal thing.

  50. Posted February 1, 2010 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

    Whether we destroy marriage by redefining it into meaningless oblivion or we destroy marriage by dropping it all together, the effect is the same. Why destroy something that works? Marriage has it's struggles, but it's by far the best arrangement out there.

    I think it says a lot about your bias that you'd rather see marriage destroyed to get what you want than to strengthen families by upholding it.

    Is your own personal gratification so important?

  51. Emma
    Posted February 1, 2010 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    But we've already redefined marriage. We've done away with polygamy. We've done away with banning interracial marriage. We've done away with selling our daughters for the highest dowry. We've done away with widows sacrificing themselves on the funeral pyres of their dead husbands. Marriage changes all the time, usually for the better. Same-sex marriage is just one more change, and will not destroy marriage any more than these other modifications have done.

    My own personal gratification has nothing to do with it.

  52. Posted February 1, 2010 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    Your own personal gratification has everything to do with it, doesn't it? Why else would you trade in something that is known to work for something that doesn't?

    What is marriage without gender?

  53. Posted February 1, 2010 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    We've also done away with accepting random sets of theories without known scientific basis. Or is that only in the animal kingdom? Would environmentalists intent on saving a species from destruction implement such radical changes as gay activists propose without significant scientific backup? See, as much as you'd like to claim that there is no basis upon which to support the natural family, there actually is. What there is no basis for, is supporting anything else.

  54. Emma
    Posted February 1, 2010 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

    It seems like you are assuming that I am gay, which I am not. I'm not sure how else to explain your preoccupation with my gratification.

    But that aside, the notion that we should simply keep what we have now merely because it works rather than striving for something greater seems kind of sad.

    Unless you are implying that we already know same-sex marriage won't work, which of course we don't know because it is so new.

  55. Posted February 1, 2010 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    So let me restate what you just said: You want to experiment on children?

  56. Posted February 1, 2010 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

    Either you haven't thought your argument through, or you have and you don't care---in which case I would ask you why your sexual preferences ought to come before the needs of children? And why aren't you being honest about it?

  57. Emma
    Posted February 1, 2010 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    Again, I ask you why you would assume that this has anything to do with my own sexual preferences -- do you really believe that only homosexuals support same-sex marriage rights?

  58. Posted February 1, 2010 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    I guess there is the possibility that you did think through the arguments, and still don't care, but I can't imagine what kind of person that would be so I give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you have some personal stake in it that has clouded your judgment.

  59. Emma
    Posted February 1, 2010 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

    If by "experimenting on children," you mean raising them within same-sex homes, well, this is already a reality and has been for a long time. We are only arguing here whether the State should fully recognize such families as legitimate -- I say yes, you say no.

    If that's not what you mean, please clarify so that I understand.

  60. Posted February 1, 2010 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

    Emma, There's no misunderstanding here. If you don't know that same sex couples can do the same job that married, natural parents can do, then why further the trend at the expense of children?

    Individuals can legally choose to bring children into the world without a mom and dad, either out of irresponsibility or out of a need to fulfill some personal desire at the expense of the child, but codifying these non marital relationships, forcing society to view them as the same as the natural family--- even though according to your own assessment, and the assessments of many other people we don't even know if the theories are correct-- would force our society to experiment on our own children.

    That is a choice that is morally reprehensible, at price that is too high to pay.

  61. Emma
    Posted February 1, 2010 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

    Well I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree on this. It has been nice chatting with you, though. And may we all raise happy, well-adjusted children. :)

  62. TC Matthews
    Posted February 1, 2010 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

    I think the major difference between your positions is the disagreement between who has the responsibility for proving SSM is equal on its merits, not on it's rhetoric alone. By Emma's standard, the experiment would have to be made on children. It is already being made on children by all kinds of non married parents. This study is huge. It actually shows the stark contrast between children being raised in the natural family and those raised in other categories. The price for children being raised outside the natural family is extremely high.

    I can't understand why anyone would want to put kids through this kind of experience simply to validate someone's theories. The risk is too high. Kids are not acceptable collateral damage.

  63. Emma
    Posted February 1, 2010 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

    I see your point, except that children are already being raised by gay parents -- this is not a new thing, or an experimental thing, or a theoretical thing. The only new part of this equation is whether or not to grant these families the governmental recognition and legal protections that we already have and take for granted.

  64. Posted February 1, 2010 at 6:56 pm | Permalink


    Would including same-sex couples, single mothers and divorced parents in the marriage definition solve the problems we're seeing here? Would that really be a solution to being motherless or fatherless?

    If it is not a new, experimental, or theoretical, you must have an answer.

  65. Ryder Samuels
    Posted February 1, 2010 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

    good point.

  66. Chairm
    Posted February 1, 2010 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

    Emma said:

    "Until it is proven that same-sex marriages increase the chance of child-abuse (and that seems very unlikely), spreading misleading arguments like this is both irresponsible and dangerous."

    Okay, of course, we can agree to wait for the longitudinal studies of randomized samples of sufficient size. No more assertions that "studies show" that same-sex parenting is just as good (or better) by advocates. Right?

    In the meantime, the structural similarities with other nonstandard provide sufficient reason to be very, very cautious about singing the "Don't Worry, Be Happy" tune.

  67. Chairm
    Posted February 1, 2010 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

    Emma said:

    "But that aside, the notion that we should simply keep what we have now merely because it works rather than striving for something greater seems kind of sad."

    Not greater, Emma. Lesser.

    The core meaning of marriage has remained the same, even if other aspects of marriage have varied. So if we toss out that core, the thing that would be left would be lesser not greater.

    Marriage means more to society than what the SSM idea could possibly mean to society. This is not just about gayness. This is about the foundational social institution of civil society upon which even Government rests.

    You suggested civil union as a replacement, but that is a dodge. Would civil union be civil marriage in all but name? Would it have special status or would it just be a protective status that fits the rest of the nonmarriage category of relationship types and kinds of living arrangements?

    If special status, then, civil union would need a special reason for that. No special reason, then, no special status, and your proposed replacement would flatten marriage from its special place.

    Also, SSMers argue that the core meaning of marriage is bigoted so they'd seek to drop it further -- from a preferential status, to a protective status, to the intolerative status reserved for bad things that harm society.

    Marriage's core meaning benefits society and so society benefits it.

  68. Chairm
    Posted February 1, 2010 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

    Emma said:

    "We are only arguing here whether the State should fully recognize such families as legitimate — I say yes, you say no."

    L. Marie has pointed out that this is not the disagreement, really. So, Emma, it is premature for you to say "agree to disagree" since you have not yet shown you understand the actual disagreement.

    Emma said:

    "... whether or not to grant these families the governmental recognition and legal protections ..."

    The provisions for designated beneficiaries has long-existed and is well-utlized across the country.

    You are instead talking about changing marriage for the sake of keeping up with the SSM idea which, as you've already noted, is new. It is so new it is experimental today and will be fore a couple of generations.

    It took social science about 40-50 years to come to a consensus that the family has been in decline. And we have mountains of evidence for that.

    SSM? Barely the start of a molehill.

  69. Emma
    Posted February 2, 2010 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    Well, whatever our disagreements, time will tell:

  70. Posted February 2, 2010 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    Emma, I am against the social experimentation and exploitation of children. The future is what we make it. Nothing is inevitable, nor should it be simply assumed to be, especially at the expense of children.

  71. Emma
    Posted February 2, 2010 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

    L. Marie, I would hazard a guess that neither side wants to exploit children. We just have differing opinions on what that means. And I agree that nothing is inevitable -- except change itself, and change has already begun in this regard. Gay marriage already exists, it's just matter of it gaining acceptance and spreading beyond the few states (and countries) that have already gotten on board.

  72. Posted February 2, 2010 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

    "I would hazard a guess that neither side wants to exploit children. We just have differing opinions on what that means."

    Emma, the problem with that statement is that when same sex couples and gay advocates come across data such as this study here that suggests the best possible arrangement for children is with a mom and a dad, they attack it rather than embrace it. This is not the first study to show that the natural family is far superior at addressing the needs of children. It flies directly in the face of the theory that whatever is good for the adult must be good for the child.

    The fact that you have not even considered what this study might have to say about what is best for children shows that you are perfectly willing to continue pushing the gay agenda and take a wait and see approach to the consequences for children. Whether you choose to see it or not, this is the great experiment. This is in fact exploiting children for the socio political benefit of those pushing the same sex movement's unquestionable and unalterable dogma.

  73. Chairm
    Posted February 2, 2010 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    Emma, lots of stuff already happens but which does not lead marriage law around by the nose.

  74. David
    Posted February 2, 2010 at 6:59 pm | Permalink


  75. Salome Rene
    Posted February 2, 2010 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

    "Children living with two married biological parents had the lowest rate of overall Harm Standard maltreatment, at 6.8 per 1,000 children. This rate differs significantly from the rates for all other family structure and living arrangement circumstances." - U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

  76. Chairm
    Posted February 5, 2010 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    David, in the blogosphere, people use all capital letters to yell. If you'd restate your question without the yelling, I'd consider listening and responding to you.

  77. David
    Posted February 5, 2010 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

    No you wouldn't because I've read other posts by other people out of caps directed to your imbicilic statements, and they still seem to have not sunk into your shallow brain.

    For the record, you assumming I'm yelling at you is totally on par with everything else you assume about homosexuals and people who are proven to be smarter than you. Nice attempt at evading a question that hits at the heart of you. I dare you to say you don't think you've been exploiting homosexuals with the H8 you've been spewing out on these posts about gay marriage and homosexuals in general. I dare you.

    After you answer the question, I'd also like to know if you went to your local gay bar last weekend and tried your ignorant discriminatory homophobic rant out on them. I'm just sayin"........

  78. David
    Posted February 5, 2010 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

    L.Marie and Chairn,

    I'm VERY interested to know you level of education, with your real name. And please try not to lie. I can look it up. I have a close friend of many years who works at the federal level of the dept of ed.

  79. TC Matthews
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 1:32 am | Permalink

    So David, let me get this straight, you can't defend your political agenda with facts so you threaten fellow commenters? Nice. Love the tolerance. Your reaction is so completely typical, is there any wonder why people who hold different views than you do may perhaps be concerned at letting ideas like yours gain power politically?

  80. Chairm
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 1:36 am | Permalink


    Thanks for not yelling with all caps.

    Marriage benefits society and society benefits the social institution of marriage. There is no exploitation of identity groups, on my part, nor on the part of those who defend marriage qua marriage.

    The SSM campaign, on the other hand, is entirely about pushing for the advantage of the gay identity group at the expense of the social institution of marriage.

  81. David
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    And what again is that expense? You being proven an idiotic homophobe?

    Explain to all of us EXACTLY what the expense to marriage will be if us homos get married.

    And you're right, we are about pushing for the advantage of the gay identity group of homosexuals, whatever that means, to be treated exactly the same way you think you as a hetero should be treated. WITH RESPECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I threatened nobody. Again, I'd love to know your education credentials, chairm and tc with real names.

    What do you think I'm going to do, find you and beat the crap out of you? That what the homosexual comminuty has put up with for YEARS, and you just think we want to visit upon you what you guys through legislation have thrown our way. And don't play stupid, homophobia is the only institutionalized discriminatory prejudice that is legal, and you know it, unless you really are as ignorant as you two portray yourselves to be. You guys are even trying to go as far as making it MORE legal to descriminate against homosexuals.

  82. David
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

    I will be waiting for your education credentials and names, thank you.

  83. Chairm
    Posted February 8, 2010 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    The content of a comment is what matters, David. Just focus attention on the content instead of trying to hyperpersonalize the discussion.

    And, again, with respect, please refrain from yelling with all caps. Also, threats of retribution are a very poor substitute for an actual argument.

  84. David
    Posted February 10, 2010 at 8:40 am | Permalink

    chairm, this much is totally indesputeable:

    the content of your comments have attacked me for the way I was born and you tell me not to hyperpersonalize the discussion. you have potently proven yourself a complete selfish iddiot. you have hyperpersonally demeaned me and are discriminitory toward me for something I have no choice in. and you have the gall to tell me to not take it personally? I don't care at this point how uneducated you are, you crossed a line that you don't know how to undo so you tell me to not take it personally.

    have you forgotten that homsexuals are people too. just like you. or are you still clinging to the idea that since you're a hetero you have an inside track on the reality of homosexuals lives and what we should think, what we deserve and what we should do with ourselves? we are people, chairm. we're not just an abstract thing in this world that it's ok to denegrate and belittle without consequence.

    focus on this:

    what is my threat of retribution? asking for your education credentials? are you afraid to tell everyone in here that you have no authority to speak on this issue because you aren't an anthropologist, a pediatricial, sociologist, psychologist, psychiatrist, a member of the apa or the ama?

    I will call you on all your bs that you spew in here.

    " Also, threats of retribution are a very poor substitute for an actual argument." What's that all about? Are you in here with your lies just to argue?

  85. Chairm
    Posted February 11, 2010 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    While I have not attacked you, David, I have encouraged you to make substantive comments and to avoid making personalized attacks on fellow commenters here.

    The form of your comments has improved -- thanks for dropping the all caps yelling -- but until the content of your comments becomes much more calm and much less hyper-personalized, I'll leave it to others to consider the attempt to engage you in substantive discussion.