Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New European Studies Show Homosexual Marriage Harms Marriage in General
Culture of Life Foundation ^ | 1/27/04 | Culture of Life Foundation

Posted on 01/27/2004 1:05:48 PM PST by Polycarp IV

CULTURE & COSMOS

January 27, 2004 Volume 1, Number 25

New European Studies Show Homosexual Marriage Harms Marriage in General

Proponents of gay marriage frequently argue that allowing for it would have no affect whatsoever on the institution of marriage itself. Former Harvard anthropologist Stanley Kurtz, writing in the current issue of the Weekly Standard, reports on various European studies that challenge this argument. Kurtz reports that in those countries where full homosexual marriage rights have been granted, marriage and indeed concrete family structures have been considerably weakened.

These studies also show that the traditional function of marriage as the basis for stable family environments and parenthood is now no longer considered necessary. Rather, "same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood.instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage.gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable."

Kurtz sites studies from a number of countries. In Denmark, which has allowed legal homosexual marriage since 1989, sociologists Cecilie Wehner, Mia Kambskar and Peter Abrahamson write, "the concept of a nuclear family is.changing. Marriage is no longer a precondition for settling a family-neither legally nor normatively." This transition in the definition of a family is similar in other Scandinavian countries.

Kurtz says the statistical measure of eroding family structures need not be based solely on the numbers of new heterosexual marriages, but also on increases in out-of-wedlock births and divorce rates. These factors have become more important as issues such as gay marriage and co-habitation have eroded the concept of family and the institution of marriage. Indeed, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway-all of whom have incorporated full gay marriage rights over the past ten to fifteen years-have seen jumps in out-of-wedlock births since they legalized homosexual marriage. This deterioration of the traditional family structure has ushered in an era where the majority of children are born outside of marriage.

Additional data, such as that from the most recent Statistical Yearbook of the UN Economic Commission, demonstrates the growth of this trend. In the two decades leading up to 2001, marriage rates decreased, divorce rates increased, and out-of-wedlock births increased in many countries, and the countries with the largest percentage fluctuations in these issues are also those most lenient with homosexual marriage rights.

While the data was specific to Europe, the same could be said for all developed Western nations, including the United States. Demographer Kathleen Kiernan classifies all Western countries into a three-tier system signifying incidence of cohabitation, out of wedlock births, and marriage. Kurtz notes that Kiernan's "three groupings closely track the movement for gay marriage." Only in the lowest incidence tier where societies are "most resistant to cohabitation, family dissolution, and out-of-wedlock births.has the gay marriage movement achieved relatively little success."

Copyright --- Culture of Life Foundation. Permission granted for unlimited. Credit required.

Culture of Life Foundation 1413 K Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington DC 20005 Phone: (202) 289-2500 Fax: (202) 289-2502 E-mail: clf@culture-of-life.org Website: http://www.culture-of-life.org


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: catholiclist; denmark; homosexualagenda; marriage; prisoners; protectmarriage; romans1; samesexmarriage; study; vice
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-88 next last
Dear Colleague,

We report today on new studies out of Europe that show homosexual marriage can actually harm marriage in general. Stanley Kurtz writes about these studies in the current Weekly Standard.

Remember, Culture & Cosmos is a publication of the Culture of Life Foundation.

Spread the word.

Yours sincerely,

Austin Ruse President

Action item: Go to http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/651gunln.asp and read the very fine article by Stanley Kurtz.

The End of Marriage in Scandinavia The "conservative case" for same-sex marriage collapses. by Stanley Kurtz 09/13/2004, Volume 010, Issue 01

MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.

More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.

This is not how the situation has been portrayed by prominent gay marriage advocates journalist Andrew Sullivan and Yale law professor William Eskridge Jr. Sullivan and Eskridge have made much of an unpublished study of Danish same-sex registered partnerships by Darren Spedale, an independent researcher with an undergraduate degree who visited Denmark in 1996 on a Fulbright scholarship. In 1989, Denmark had legalized de facto gay marriage (Norway followed in 1993 and Sweden in 1994). Drawing on Spedale, Sullivan and Eskridge cite evidence that since then, marriage has strengthened. Spedale reported that in the six years following the establishment of registered partnerships in Denmark (1990-1996), heterosexual marriage rates climbed by 10 percent, while heterosexual divorce rates declined by 12 percent. Writing in the McGeorge Law Review, Eskridge claimed that Spedale's study had exposed the "hysteria and irresponsibility" of those who predicted gay marriage would undermine marriage. Andrew Sullivan's Spedale-inspired piece was subtitled, "The case against same-sex marriage crumbles."

Yet the half-page statistical analysis of heterosexual marriage in Darren Spedale's unpublished paper doesn't begin to get at the truth about the decline of marriage in Scandinavia during the nineties. Scandinavian marriage is now so weak that statistics on marriage and divorce no longer mean what they used to.

Take divorce. It's true that in Denmark, as elsewhere in Scandinavia, divorce numbers looked better in the nineties. But that's because the pool of married people has been shrinking for some time. You can't divorce without first getting married. Moreover, a closer look at Danish divorce in the post-gay marriage decade reveals disturbing trends. Many Danes have stopped holding off divorce until their kids are grown. And Denmark in the nineties saw a 25 percent increase in cohabiting couples with children. With fewer parents marrying, what used to show up in statistical tables as early divorce is now the unrecorded breakup of a cohabiting couple with children.

What about Spedale's report that the Danish marriage rate increased 10 percent from 1990 to 1996? Again, the news only appears to be good. First, there is no trend. Eurostat's just-released marriage rates for 2001 show declines in Sweden and Denmark (Norway hasn't reported). Second, marriage statistics in societies with very low rates (Sweden registered the lowest marriage rate in recorded history in 1997) must be carefully parsed. In his study of the Norwegian family in the nineties, for example, Christer Hyggen shows that a small increase in Norway's marriage rate over the past decade has more to do with the institution's decline than with any renaissance. Much of the increase in Norway's marriage rate is driven by older couples "catching up." These couples belong to the first generation that accepts rearing the first born child out of wedlock. As they bear second children, some finally get married. (And even this tendency to marry at the birth of a second child is weakening.) As for the rest of the increase in the Norwegian marriage rate, it is largely attributable to remarriage among the large number of divorced.

Spedale's report of lower divorce rates and higher marriage rates in post-gay marriage Denmark is thus misleading. Marriage is now so weak in Scandinavia that shifts in these rates no longer mean what they would in America. In Scandinavian demography, what counts is the out-of-wedlock birthrate, and the family dissolution rate.

The family dissolution rate is different from the divorce rate. Because so many Scandinavians now rear children outside of marriage, divorce rates are unreliable measures of family weakness. Instead, we need to know the rate at which parents (married or not) split up. Precise statistics on family dissolution are unfortunately rare. Yet the studies that have been done show that throughout Scandinavia (and the West) cohabiting couples with children break up at two to three times the rate of married parents. So rising rates of cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth stand as proxy for rising rates of family dissolution.

By that measure, Scandinavian family dissolution has only been worsening. Between 1990 and 2000, Norway's out-of-wedlock birthrate rose from 39 to 50 percent, while Sweden's rose from 47 to 55 percent. In Denmark out-of-wedlock births stayed level during the nineties (beginning at 46 percent and ending at 45 percent). But the leveling off seems to be a function of a slight increase in fertility among older couples, who marry only after multiple births (if they don't break up first). That shift masks the 25 percent increase during the nineties in cohabitation and unmarried parenthood among Danish couples (many of them young). About 60 percent of first born children in Denmark now have unmarried parents. The rise of fragile families based on cohabitation and out-of-wedlock childbearing means that during the nineties, the total rate of family dissolution in Scandinavia significantly increased.

Scandinavia's out-of-wedlock birthrates may have risen more rapidly in the seventies, when marriage began its slide. But the push of that rate past the 50 percent mark during the nineties was in many ways more disturbing. Growth in the out-of-wedlock birthrate is limited by the tendency of parents to marry after a couple of births, and also by the persistence of relatively conservative and religious districts. So as out-of-wedlock childbearing pushes beyond 50 percent, it is reaching the toughest areas of cultural resistance. The most important trend of the post-gay marriage decade may be the erosion of the tendency to marry at the birth of a second child. Once even that marker disappears, the path to the complete disappearance of marriage is open.

And now that married parenthood has become a minority phenomenon, it has lost the critical mass required to have socially normative force. As Danish sociologists Wehner, Kambskard, and Abrahamson describe it, in the wake of the changes of the nineties, "Marriage is no longer a precondition for settling a family--neither legally nor normatively. . . . What defines and makes the foundation of the Danish family can be said to have moved from marriage to parenthood."

So the highly touted half-page of analysis from an unpublished paper that supposedly helps validate the "conservative case" for gay marriage--i.e., that it will encourage stable marriage for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike--does no such thing. Marriage in Scandinavia is in deep decline, with children shouldering the burden of rising rates of family dissolution. And the mainspring of the decline--an increasingly sharp separation between marriage and parenthood--can be linked to gay marriage. To see this, we need to understand why marriage is in trouble in Scandinavia to begin with.

SCANDINAVIA has long been a bellwether of family change. Scholars take the Swedish experience as a prototype for family developments that will, or could, spread throughout the world. So let's have a look at the decline of Swedish marriage.

In Sweden, as elsewhere, the sixties brought contraception, abortion, and growing individualism. Sex was separated from procreation, reducing the need for "shotgun weddings." These changes, along with the movement of women into the workforce, enabled and encouraged people to marry at later ages. With married couples putting off parenthood, early divorce had fewer consequences for children. That weakened the taboo against divorce. Since young couples were putting off children, the next step was to dispense with marriage and cohabit until children were desired. Americans have lived through this transformation. The Swedes have simply drawn the final conclusion: If we've come so far without marriage, why marry at all? Our love is what matters, not a piece of paper. Why should children change that?

Two things prompted the Swedes to take this extra step--the welfare state and cultural attitudes. No Western economy has a higher percentage of public employees, public expenditures--or higher tax rates--than Sweden. The massive Swedish welfare state has largely displaced the family as provider. By guaranteeing jobs and income to every citizen (even children), the welfare state renders each individual independent. It's easier to divorce your spouse when the state will support you instead.

The taxes necessary to support the welfare state have had an enormous impact on the family. With taxes so high, women must work. This reduces the time available for child rearing, thus encouraging the expansion of a day-care system that takes a large part in raising nearly all Swedish children over age one. Here is at least a partial realization of Simone de Beauvoir's dream of an enforced androgyny that pushes women from the home by turning children over to the state.

Yet the Swedish welfare state may encourage traditionalism in one respect. The lone teen pregnancies common in the British and American underclass are rare in Sweden, which has no underclass to speak of. Even when Swedish couples bear a child out of wedlock, they tend to reside together when the child is born. Strong state enforcement of child support is another factor discouraging single motherhood by teens. Whatever the causes, the discouragement of lone motherhood is a short-term effect. Ultimately, mothers and fathers can get along financially alone. So children born out of wedlock are raised, initially, by two cohabiting parents, many of whom later break up.

There are also cultural-ideological causes of Swedish family decline. Even more than in the United States, radical feminist and socialist ideas pervade the universities and the media. Many Scandinavian social scientists see marriage as a barrier to full equality between the sexes, and would not be sorry to see marriage replaced by unmarried cohabitation. A related cultural-ideological agent of marital decline is secularism. Sweden is probably the most secular country in the world. Secular social scientists (most of them quite radical) have largely replaced clerics as arbiters of public morality. Swedes themselves link the decline of marriage to secularism. And many studies confirm that, throughout the West, religiosity is associated with institutionally strong marriage, while heightened secularism is correlated with a weakening of marriage. Scholars have long suggested that the relatively thin Christianization of the Nordic countries explains a lot about why the decline of marriage in Scandinavia is a decade ahead of the rest of the West.

Are Scandinavians concerned about rising out-of-wedlock births, the decline of marriage, and ever-rising rates of family dissolution? No, and yes. For over 15 years, an American outsider, Rutgers University sociologist David Popenoe, has played Cassandra on these issues. Popenoe's 1988 book, "Disturbing the Nest," is still the definitive treatment of Scandinavian family change and its meaning for the Western world. Popenoe is no toe-the-line conservative. He has praise for the Swedish welfare state, and criticizes American opposition to some child welfare programs. Yet Popenoe has documented the slow motion collapse of the Swedish family, and emphasized the link between Swedish family decline and welfare policy.

For years, Popenoe's was a lone voice. Yet by the end of the nineties, the problem was too obvious to ignore. In 2000, Danish sociologist Mai Heide Ottosen published a study, "Samboskab, Aegteskab og Foraeldrebrud" ("Cohabitation, Marriage and Parental Breakup"), which confirmed the increased risk of family dissolution to children of unmarried parents, and gently chided Scandinavian social scientists for ignoring the "quiet revolution" of out-of-wedlock parenting.

Despite the reluctance of Scandinavian social scientists to study the consequences of family dissolution for children, we do have an excellent study that followed the life experiences of all children born in Stockholm in 1953. (Not coincidentally, the research was conducted by a British scholar, Duncan W.G. Timms.) That study found that regardless of income or social status, parental breakup had negative effects on children's mental health. Boys living with single, separated, or divorced mothers had particularly high rates of impairment in adolescence. An important 2003 study by Gunilla Ringbäck Weitoft, et al. found that children of single parents in Sweden have more than double the rates of mortality, severe morbidity, and injury of children in two parent households. This held true after controlling for a wide range of demographic and socioeconomic circumstances.

THE DECLINE OF MARRIAGE and the rise of unstable cohabitation and out-of-wedlock childbirth are not confined to Scandinavia. The Scandinavian welfare state aggravates these problems. Yet none of the forces weakening marriage there are unique to the region. Contraception, abortion, women in the workforce, spreading secularism, ascendant individualism, and a substantial welfare state are found in every Western country. That is why the Nordic pattern is spreading.

Yet the pattern is spreading unevenly. And scholars agree that cultural tradition plays a central role in determining whether a given country moves toward the Nordic family system. Religion is a key variable. A 2002 study by the Max Planck Institute, for example, concluded that countries with the lowest rates of family dissolution and out-of-wedlock births are "strongly dominated by the Catholic confession." The same study found that in countries with high levels of family dissolution, religion in general, and Catholicism in particular, had little influence.

British demographer Kathleen Kiernan, the acknowledged authority on the spread of cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births across Europe, divides the continent into three zones. The Nordic countries are the leaders in cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births. They are followed by a middle group that includes the Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain, and Germany. Until recently, France was a member of this middle group, but France's rising out-of-wedlock birthrate has moved it into the Nordic category. North American rates of cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth put the United States and Canada into this middle group. Most resistant to cohabitation, family dissolution, and out-of-wedlock births are the southern European countries of Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece, and, until recently, Switzerland and Ireland. (Ireland's rising out-of-wedlock birthrate has just pushed it into the middle group.)

These three groupings closely track the movement for gay marriage. In the early nineties, gay marriage came to the Nordic countries, where the out-of-wedlock birthrate was already high. Ten years later, out-of-wedlock birth rates have risen significantly in the middle group of nations. Not coincidentally, nearly every country in that middle group has recently either legalized some form of gay marriage, or is seriously considering doing so. Only in the group with low out-of-wedlock birthrates has the gay marriage movement achieved relatively little success.

This suggests that gay marriage is both an effect and a cause of the increasing separation between marriage and parenthood. As rising out-of-wedlock birthrates disassociate heterosexual marriage from parenting, gay marriage becomes conceivable. If marriage is only about a relationship between two people, and is not intrinsically connected to parenthood, why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to marry? It follows that once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, that change cannot help but lock in and reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes gay marriage conceivable to begin with.

We see this process at work in the radical separation of marriage and parenthood that swept across Scandinavia in the nineties. If Scandinavian out-of-wedlock birthrates had not already been high in the late eighties, gay marriage would have been far more difficult to imagine. More than a decade into post-gay marriage Scandinavia, out-of-wedlock birthrates have passed 50 percent, and the effective end of marriage as a protective shield for children has become thinkable. Gay marriage hasn't blocked the separation of marriage and parenthood; it has advanced it.

WE SEE THIS most clearly in Norway. In 1989, a couple of years after Sweden broke ground by offering gay couples the first domestic partnership package in Europe, Denmark legalized de facto gay marriage. This kicked off a debate in Norway (traditionally more conservative than either Sweden or Denmark), which legalized de facto gay marriage in 1993. (Sweden expanded its benefits packages into de facto gay marriage in 1994.) In liberal Denmark, where out-of-wedlock birthrates were already very high, the public favored same-sex marriage. But in Norway, where the out-of-wedlock birthrate was lower--and religion traditionally stronger--gay marriage was imposed, against the public will, by the political elite.

Norway's gay marriage debate, which ran most intensely from 1991 through 1993, was a culture-shifting event. And once enacted, gay marriage had a decidedly unconservative impact on Norway's cultural contests, weakening marriage's defenders, and placing a weapon in the hands of those who sought to replace marriage with cohabitation. Since its adoption, gay marriage has brought division and decline to Norway's Lutheran Church. Meanwhile, Norway's fast-rising out-of-wedlock birthrate has shot past Denmark's. Particularly in Norway--once relatively conservative--gay marriage has undermined marriage's institutional standing for everyone.

Norway's Lutheran state church has been riven by conflict in the decade since the approval of de facto gay marriage, with the ordination of registered partners the most divisive issue. The church's agonies have been intensively covered in the Norwegian media, which have taken every opportunity to paint the church as hidebound and divided. The nineties began with conservative churchmen in control. By the end of the decade, liberals had seized the reins.

While the most public disputes of the nineties were over homosexuality, Norway's Lutheran church was also divided over the question of heterosexual cohabitation. Asked directly, liberal and conservative clerics alike voice a preference for marriage over cohabitation--especially for couples with children. In practice, however, conservative churchmen speak out against the trend toward unmarried cohabitation and childbirth, while liberals acquiesce.

This division over heterosexual cohabitation broke into the open in 2000, at the height of the church's split over gay partnerships, when Prince Haakon, heir to Norway's throne, began to live with his lover, a single mother. From the start of the prince's controversial relationship to its eventual culmination in marriage, the future head of the Norwegian state church received tokens of public support or understanding from the very same bishops who were leading the fight to permit the ordination of homosexual partners.

So rather than strengthening Norwegian marriage against the rise of cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth, same-sex marriage had the opposite effect. Gay marriage lessened the church's authority by splitting it into warring factions and providing the secular media with occasions to mock and expose divisions. Gay marriage also elevated the church's openly rebellious minority liberal faction to national visibility, allowing Norwegians to feel that their proclivity for unmarried parenthood, if not fully approved by the church, was at least not strongly condemned. If the "conservative case" for gay marriage had been valid, clergy who were supportive of gay marriage would have taken a strong public stand against unmarried heterosexual parenthood. This didn't happen. It was the conservative clergy who criticized the prince, while the liberal supporters of gay marriage tolerated his decisions. The message was not lost on ordinary Norwegians, who continued their flight to unmarried parenthood.

Gay marriage is both an effect and a reinforcing cause of the separation of marriage and parenthood. In states like Sweden and Denmark, where out-of-wedlock birthrates were already very high, and the public favored gay marriage, gay unions were an effect of earlier changes. Once in place, gay marriage symbolically ratified the separation of marriage and parenthood. And once established, gay marriage became one of several factors contributing to further increases in cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birthrates, as well as to early divorce. But in Norway, where out-of-wedlock birthrates were lower, religion stronger, and the public opposed same-sex unions, gay marriage had an even greater role in precipitating marital decline.

SWEDEN'S POSITION as the world leader in family decline is associated with a weak clergy, and the prominence of secular and left-leaning social scientists. In the post-gay marriage nineties, as Norway's once relatively low out-of-wedlock birthrate was climbing to unprecedented heights, and as the gay marriage controversy weakened and split the once respected Lutheran state church, secular social scientists took center stage.

Kari Moxnes, a feminist sociologist specializing in divorce, is one of the most prominent of Norway's newly emerging group of public social scientists. As a scholar who sees both marriage and at-home motherhood as inherently oppressive to women, Moxnes is a proponent of nonmarital cohabitation and parenthood. In 1993, as the Norwegian legislature was debating gay marriage, Moxnes published an article, "Det tomme ekteskap" ("Empty Marriage"), in the influential liberal paper Dagbladet. She argued that Norwegian gay marriage was a sign of marriage's growing emptiness, not its strength. Although Moxnes spoke in favor of gay marriage, she treated its creation as a (welcome) death knell for marriage itself. Moxnes identified homosexuals--with their experience in forging relationships unencumbered by children--as social pioneers in the separation of marriage from parenthood. In recognizing homosexual relationships, Moxnes said, society was ratifying the division of marriage from parenthood that had spurred the rise of out-of-wedlock births to begin with.

A frequent public presence, Moxnes enjoyed her big moment in 1999, when she was embroiled in a dispute with Valgerd Svarstad Haugland, minister of children and family affairs in Norway's Christian Democrat government. Moxnes had criticized Christian marriage classes for teaching children the importance of wedding vows. This brought a sharp public rebuke from Haugland. Responding to Haugland's criticisms, Moxnes invoked homosexual families as proof that "relationships" were now more important than institutional marriage.

This is not what proponents of the conservative case for gay marriage had in mind. In Norway, gay marriage has given ammunition to those who wish to put an end to marriage. And the steady rise of Norway's out-of-wedlock birthrate during the nineties proves that the opponents of marriage are succeeding. Nor is Kari Moxnes an isolated case.

Months before Moxnes clashed with Haugland, social historian Kari Melby had a very public quarrel with a leader of the Christian Democratic party over the conduct of Norway's energy minister, Marit Arnstad. Arnstad had gotten pregnant in office and had declined to name the father. Melby defended Arnstad, and publicly challenged the claim that children do best with both a mother and a father. In making her case, Melby praised gay parenting, along with voluntary single motherhood, as equally worthy alternatives to the traditional family. So instead of noting that an expectant mother might want to follow the example of marriage that even gays were now setting, Melby invoked homosexual families as proof that a child can do as well with one parent as two.

Finally, consider a case that made even more news in Norway, that of handball star Mia Hundvin (yes, handball prowess makes for celebrity in Norway). Hundvin had been in a registered gay partnership with fellow handballer Camilla Andersen. These days, however, having publicly announced her bisexuality, Hundvin is linked with Norwegian snowboarder Terje Haakonsen. Inspired by her time with Haakonsen's son, Hundvin decided to have a child. The father of Hundvin's child may well be Haakonsen, but neither Hundvin nor Haakonsen is saying.

Did Hundvin divorce her registered partner before deciding to become a single mother by (probably) her new boyfriend? The story in Norway's premiere paper, Aftenposten, doesn't bother to mention. After noting that Hundvin and Andersen were registered partners, the paper simply says that the two women are no longer "romantically involved." Hundvin has only been with Haakonsen about a year. She obviously decided to become a single mother without bothering to see whether she and Haakonsen might someday marry. Nor has Hundvin appeared to consider that her affection for Haakonsen's child (also apparently born out of wedlock) might better be expressed by marrying Haakonsen and becoming his son's new mother.

Certainly, you can chalk up more than a little of this saga to celebrity culture. But celebrity culture is both a product and influencer of the larger culture that gives rise to it. Clearly, the idea of parenthood here has been radically individualized, and utterly detached from marriage. Registered partnerships have reinforced existing trends. The press treats gay partnerships more as relationships than as marriages. The symbolic message of registered partnerships--for social scientists, handball players, and bishops alike--has been that most any nontraditional family is just fine. Gay marriage has served to validate the belief that individual choice trumps family form.

The Scandinavian experience rebuts the so-called conservative case for gay marriage in more than one way. Noteworthy, too, is the lack of a movement toward marriage and monogamy among gays. Take-up rates on gay marriage are exceedingly small. Yale's William Eskridge acknowledged this when he reported in 2000 that 2,372 couples had registered after nine years of the Danish law, 674 after four years of the Norwegian law, and 749 after four years of the Swedish law.

Danish social theorist Henning Bech and Norwegian sociologist Rune Halvorsen offer excellent accounts of the gay marriage debates in Denmark and Norway. Despite the regnant social liberalism in these countries, proposals to recognize gay unions generated tremendous controversy, and have reshaped the meaning of marriage in the years since. Both Bech and Halvorsen stress that the conservative case for gay marriage, while put forward by a few, was rejected by many in the gay community. Bech, perhaps Scandinavia's most prominent gay thinker, dismisses as an "implausible" claim the idea that gay marriage promotes monogamy. He treats the "conservative case" as something that served chiefly tactical purposes during a difficult political debate. According to Halvorsen, many of Norway's gays imposed self-censorship during the marriage debate, so as to hide their opposition to marriage itself. The goal of the gay marriage movements in both Norway and Denmark, say Halvorsen and Bech, was not marriage but social approval for homosexuality. Halvorsen suggests that the low numbers of registered gay couples may be understood as a collective protest against the expectations (presumably, monogamy) embodied in marriage.

SINCE LIBERALIZING DIVORCE in the first decades of the twentieth century, the Nordic countries have been the leading edge of marital change. Drawing on the Swedish experience, Kathleen Kiernan, the British demographer, uses a four-stage model by which to gauge a country's movement toward Swedish levels of out-of-wedlock births.

In stage one, cohabitation is seen as a deviant or avant-garde practice, and the vast majority of the population produces children within marriage. Italy is at this first stage. In the second stage, cohabitation serves as a testing period before marriage, and is generally a childless phase. Bracketing the problem of underclass single parenthood, America is largely at this second stage. In stage three, cohabitation becomes increasingly acceptable, and parenting is no longer automatically associated with marriage. Norway was at this third stage, but with recent demographic and legal changes has entered stage four. In the fourth stage (Sweden and Denmark), marriage and cohabitation become practically indistinguishable, with many, perhaps even most, children born and raised outside of marriage. According to Kiernan, these stages may vary in duration, yet once a country has reached a stage, return to an earlier phase is unlikely. (She offers no examples of stage reversal.) Yet once a stage has been reached, earlier phases coexist.

The forces pushing nations toward the Nordic model are almost universal. True, by preserving legal distinctions between marriage and cohabitation, reining in the welfare state, and preserving at least some traditional values, a given country might forestall or prevent the normalization of nonmarital parenthood. Yet every Western country is susceptible to the pull of the Nordic model. Nor does Catholicism guarantee immunity. Ireland, perhaps because of its geographic, linguistic, and cultural proximity to England, is now suffering from out-of-wedlock birthrates far in excess of the rest of Catholic Europe. Without deeming a shift inevitable, Kiernan openly wonders how long America can resist the pull of stages three and four.

Although Sweden leads the world in family decline, the United States is runner-up. Swedes marry less, and bear more children out of wedlock, than any other industrialized nation. But Americans lead the world in single parenthood and divorce. If we bracket the crisis of single parenthood among African-Americans, the picture is somewhat different. Yet even among non-Hispanic whites, the American divorce rate is extremely high by world standards.

The American mix of family traditionalism and family instability is unusual. In comparison to Europe, Americans are more religious and more likely to turn to the family than the state for a wide array of needs--from child care, to financial support, to care for the elderly. Yet America's individualism cuts two ways. Our cultural libertarianism protects the family as a bulwark against the state, yet it also breaks individuals loose from the family. The danger we face is a combination of America's divorce rate with unstable, Scandinavian-style out-of-wedlock parenthood. With a growing tendency for cohabiting couples to have children outside of marriage, America is headed in that direction.

Young Americans are more likely to favor gay marriage than their elders. That oft-noted fact is directly related to another. Less than half of America's twentysomethings consider it wrong to bear children outside marriage. There is a growing tendency for even middle class cohabiting couples to have children without marrying.

Nonetheless, although cohabiting parenthood is growing in America, levels here are still far short of those in Europe. America's situation is not unlike Norway's in the early nineties, with religiosity relatively strong, the out-of-wedlock birthrate still relatively low (yet rising), and the public opposed to gay marriage. If, as in Norway, gay marriage were imposed here by a socially liberal cultural elite, it would likely speed us on the way toward the classic Nordic pattern of less frequent marriage, more frequent out-of-wedlock birth, and skyrocketing family dissolution.

In the American context, this would be a disaster. Beyond raising rates of middle class family dissolution, a further separation of marriage from parenthood would reverse the healthy turn away from single-parenting that we have begun to see since welfare reform. And cross-class family decline would bring intense pressure for a new expansion of the American welfare state.

All this is happening in Britain. With the Nordic pattern's spread across Europe, Britain's out-of-wedlock birthrate has risen to 40 percent. Most of that increase is among cohabiting couples. Yet a significant number of out-of-wedlock births in Britain are to lone teenage mothers. This a function of Britain's class divisions. Remember that although the Scandinavian welfare state encourages family dissolution in the long term, in the short term, Scandinavian parents giving birth out of wedlock tend to stay together. But given the presence of a substantial underclass in Britain, the spread of Nordic cohabitation there has sent lone teen parenting rates way up. As Britain's rates of single parenting and family dissolution have grown, so has pressure to expand the welfare state to compensate for economic help that families can no longer provide. But of course, an expansion of the welfare state would only lock the weakening of Britain's family system into place.

If America is to avoid being forced into a similar choice, we'll have to resist the separation of marriage from parenthood. Yet even now we are being pushed in the Scandinavian direction. Stimulated by rising rates of unmarried parenthood, the influential American Law Institute (ALI) has proposed a series of legal reforms ("Principles of Family Dissolution") designed to equalize marriage and cohabitation. Adoption of the ALI principles would be a giant step toward the Scandinavian system.

AMERICANS take it for granted that, despite its recent troubles, marriage will always exist. This is a mistake. Marriage is disappearing in Scandinavia, and the forces undermining it there are active throughout the West. Perhaps the most disturbing sign for the future is the collapse of the Scandinavian tendency to marry after the second child. At the start of the nineties, 60 percent of unmarried Norwegian parents who lived together had only one child. By 2001, 56 percent of unmarried, cohabiting parents in Norway had two or more children. This suggests that someday, Scandinavian parents might simply stop getting married altogether, no matter how many children they have.

The death of marriage is not inevitable. In a given country, public policy decisions and cultural values could slow, and perhaps halt, the process of marital decline. Nor are we faced with an all-or-nothing choice between the marital system of, say, the 1950s and marriage's disappearance. Kiernan's model posits stopping points. So repealing no-fault divorce, or even eliminating premarital cohabitation, are not what's at issue. With no-fault divorce, Americans traded away some of the marital stability that protects children to gain more freedom for adults. Yet we can accept that trade-off, while still drawing a line against descent into a Nordic-style system. And cohabitation as a premarital testing phase is not the same as unmarried parenting. Potentially, a line between the two can hold.

Developments in the last half-century have surely weakened the links between American marriage and parenthood. Yet to a remarkable degree, Americans still take it for granted that parents should marry. Scandinavia shocks us. Still, who can deny that gay marriage will accustom us to a more Scandinavian-style separation of marriage and parenthood? And with our underclass, the social pathologies this produces in America are bound to be more severe than they already are in wealthy and socially homogeneous Scandinavia.

All of these considerations suggest that the gay marriage debate in America is too important to duck. Kiernan maintains that as societies progressively detach marriage from parenthood, stage reversal is impossible. That makes sense. The association between marriage and parenthood is partly a mystique. Disenchanted mystiques cannot be restored on demand.

What about a patchwork in which some American states have gay marriage while others do not? A state-by-state patchwork would practically guarantee a shift toward the Nordic family system. Movies and television, which do not respect state borders, would embrace gay marriage. The cultural effects would be national.

What about Vermont-style civil unions? Would that be a workable compromise? Clearly not. Scandinavian registered partnerships are Vermont-style civil unions. They are not called marriage, yet resemble marriage in almost every other respect. The key differences are that registered partnerships do not permit adoption or artificial insemination, and cannot be celebrated in state-affiliated churches. These limitations are gradually being repealed. The lesson of the Scandinavian experience is that even de facto same-sex marriage undermines marriage.

The Scandinavian example also proves that gay marriage is not interracial marriage in a new guise. The miscegenation analogy was never convincing. There are plenty of reasons to think that, in contrast to race, sexual orientation will have profound effects on marriage. But with Scandinavia, we are well beyond the realm of even educated speculation. The post-gay marriage changes in the Scandinavian family are significant. This is not like the fantasy about interracial birth defects. There is a serious scholarly debate about the spread of the Nordic family pattern. Since gay marriage is a part of that pattern, it needs to be part of that debate.

Conservative advocates of gay marriage want to test it in a few states. The implication is that, should the experiment go bad, we can call it off. Yet the effects, even in a few American states, will be neither containable nor revocable. It took about 15 years after the change hit Sweden and Denmark for Norway's out-of-wedlock birthrate to begin to move from "European" to "Nordic" levels. It took another 15 years (and the advent of gay marriage) for Norway's out-of-wedlock birthrate to shoot past even Denmark's. By the time we see the effects of gay marriage in America, it will be too late to do anything about it. Yet we needn't wait that long. In effect, Scandinavia has run our experiment for us. The results are in.

Stanley Kurtz is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. His "Beyond Gay Marriage" appeared in our August 4, 2003, issue.

© Copyright 2004, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

1 posted on 01/27/2004 1:05:49 PM PST by Polycarp IV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: .45MAN; AAABEST; AKA Elena; al_c; american colleen; Angelus Errare; Antoninus; aposiopetic; ...
PING!
2 posted on 01/27/2004 1:06:40 PM PST by Polycarp IV (Start a revolution: get rid of your TVs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
good one here...ping
3 posted on 01/27/2004 1:07:25 PM PST by Polycarp IV (Start a revolution: get rid of your TVs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CAtholic Family Association
...not that theres anything wrong with that... o wait, there is.
4 posted on 01/27/2004 1:07:34 PM PST by RolandBurnam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CAtholic Family Association
This deterioration of the traditional family structure has ushered in an era where the majority of children are born outside of marriage.

Which is the worst form of child abuse possible. Nothing harms a child more than not having a Mother and Father.

5 posted on 01/27/2004 1:10:25 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CAtholic Family Association
Bttt
6 posted on 01/27/2004 1:11:31 PM PST by DoctorMichael (Thats my story, and I'm sticking to it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CAtholic Family Association
Indeed, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway-all of whom have incorporated full gay marriage rights over the past ten to fifteen years-have seen jumps in out-of-wedlock births since they legalized homosexual marriage.

No argument that out of wedlock births and other social issues mentioned are a legitimate public concern, but to blame it on gay marriage is disingenuous at best.

At worst, it's a preconceived conclusion seeking support.

Quite an implausible argument.

7 posted on 01/27/2004 1:14:26 PM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CAtholic Family Association
Thanks, CFA - the original Weekly Standard article was posted a few days ago, here's the link:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1064217/posts

I guess I'll ping everyone again since there's some commentary at the top, and maybe some people missed it the first go around. An excellent article. If people read it, they'll get it, if they want to get it.
8 posted on 01/27/2004 1:15:18 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
Did you read the whole article? It's not exactly one dimensional.
9 posted on 01/27/2004 1:16:25 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping - at the risk of being redundant, this article was actually posted a few days ago (see link above) but this has added commentary at the top. It is such a good reference article I'm risking pinging it kind of "again".

If anyhone wants on or off this ping list, let me know.

Keep your thinking caps on! Test this week.
11 posted on 01/27/2004 1:19:08 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Yes, but there's nothing to substantiate any cause and effect relationship between gay marriage and out of wedlock births. And in fact, such a convoluted conclusion strains credibility.

Would you not attribute the simultaneous emergence of these two issues to be due more to a general liberalization in Europe rather than having any cause and effect relationship?

12 posted on 01/27/2004 1:19:17 PM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CAtholic Family Association
Very interesting!
13 posted on 01/27/2004 1:21:00 PM PST by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
I guess you didn't read my question.

It was: "Have you read the whole article? It's not exactly one dimensional."

(But your comment is.)
14 posted on 01/27/2004 1:22:45 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CAtholic Family Association
Conservative advocates of gay marriage want to test it in a few states.

First of all, that's an oxymoron.

Secondly, this idea is like introducing cancer in just 2 or 3 of 50 areas of a body.

15 posted on 01/27/2004 1:22:58 PM PST by Barnacle ("It is as it was." JPII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Barnacle
Excellent comparison.
16 posted on 01/27/2004 1:24:10 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
I guess you didn't read my question. It was: "Have you read the whole article?

I guess you missed where I answered your question, "Yes".

It's not exactly one dimensional." (But your comment is.)

For once, I'd like to have a mature, frank discussion on this issue, but I do know from experience that that's just too much to expect from you and the other vitriolic anti-gay posters here.

17 posted on 01/27/2004 1:31:00 PM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CAtholic Family Association
"MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA"

Does that mean that, uh, well, ahh, I can marry one of those knock-blondes or red-heads and bring her here to America?
18 posted on 01/27/2004 1:32:15 PM PST by ZULU (Remember the Alamo!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
It's impossible to discuss with you because your foundation seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that there's nothing harmful or inherently destructive about same sex behavior, there is no "gay" agenda, and the morality and immorality don't exist. And that if I or anyone else disagrees with this platform, we're vitriolic and "anti-gay".

P.S. What do you mean by "anti-gay"?
19 posted on 01/27/2004 1:34:18 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CAtholic Family Association
Sweden, which has no underclass to speak of.

Study discovers Swedes are less well-off than the poorest Americans
Reuters via Haaretz ^ | 5/4/2002 | Reuters
Posted on 05/04/2002 6:41:42 PM EDT by l33t

STOCKHOLM - Swedes, usually perceived in Europe as a comfortable, middle class lot, are poorer than African Americans, the most economically-deprived group in the United States, a Swedish study showed yesterday.

The study by a retail trade lobby, published in the liberal Dagens Nyheter newspaper 19 weeks before the next general election, echoed the center-right opposition's criticism of the weak state of Sweden's economy, following decades of almost uninterrupted Social Democratic rule.

The Swedish Research Institute of Trade (HUI) said it had compared official U.S. and Swedish statistics on household income, as well as gross domestic product, private consumption and retail spending per capita between 1980 and 1999.

Using fixed prices and purchasing power parity adjusted data, the median household income in Sweden at the end of the 1990s was the equivalent of $26,800, compared with a median of $39,400 for U.S. households, HUI's study showed.

"Weak growth means that Sweden has lost greatly in prosperity compared with the United States," HUI's president, Fredrik Bergstrom, and chief economist, Robert Gidehag, said.

International Monetary Fund data from 2001 show that U.S. GDP per capita in dollar terms was 56 percent higher than in Sweden, while in 1980, Swedish GDP per capita was 20 percent higher.

"Black people, who have the lowest income in the United States, now have a higher standard of living than an ordinary Swedish household," the HUI economists said.

If Sweden were a U.S. state, it would be the poorest, measured by household gross income before taxes, Bergstrom and Gidehag said.

They said they had chosen that measure for their comparison to get around the differences in taxation and welfare structures. Capital gains such as income from securities were not included.

The median income of African American households was about 70 percent of the median for all U.S. households, while Swedish households earned 68 percent of the overall U.S. median level.

This means that Swedes stood "below groups, which, in the Swedish debate, are usually regarded as poor and losers in the American economy," Bergstrom and Gidehag said.

Between 1980 and 1999, the gross income of Sweden's poorest households increased by just over 6 percent, while the poorest in the United States enjoyed a three times higher increase, HUI said.

If the trend persists, "things that are commonplace in the United States will be regarded as the utmost luxury in Sweden," the authors said. "We are not quite there yet, but the trend is clear."

According to HUI figures, during the period 1998-1999, U.S. GDP per capita was 40 percent higher than in Sweden, while U.S. private consumption and retail sales per capita exceeded Swedish levels by more than 80 percent.

The HUI economists attributed the much bigger difference in consumption and sales mainly to the fact that U.S. households pay themselves for education and health care, services that are tax-financed and come for free or at low user charges in Sweden.

According to recent opinion polls Sweden's Social Democrats are comfortably ahead of the center-right opposition in the run-up to the September 15 elections.

20 posted on 01/27/2004 1:34:48 PM PST by Maceman (Too nuanced for a bumper sticker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CAtholic Family Association
read later
21 posted on 01/27/2004 1:45:11 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CAtholic Family Association
A good and thoughtful article.

It is indeed an abuse of children to raise them in environments where parental attachments are uncertain, responsibilities of adults are vague or non-existent, and where secular materialism triumphs over sacred duties.

The lesson here is that 'gay marriage' - the oxymoron - is another nail in the coffin of marriage. Both detractors and supporters of marriage know this, deep down.
22 posted on 01/27/2004 2:03:00 PM PST by WOSG (I don't want the GOP to become a circular firing squad and the Socialist Democrats a majority.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
your foundation seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that there's nothing harmful or inherently destructive about same sex behavior

That's correct. I don't think there is. I would also disagree with your characterization that homosexuality is nothing more than a "behavior". Are you only heterosexual while you're having sex, or is it part of the person you are? And notwithstanding all the hysteria and chest-thumping around here, I've heard no convincing argument that there is anything harmful or destructive about it.

there is no "gay" agenda

Incorrect. There definitely is a 'gay agenda' and anyone with two eyes can see it. But that doesn't mean gays as a whole subscribe to it or necessarily support it. Nor is every gay person the flamboyant drag queen dancing on a parade float. Mostly, there's the person working in the office next to you minding their own business.

and the morality and immorality don't exist

Of course morality and immorality exist. I don't happen to consider a voluntary relationship between two adults to be immoral. I consider denigration and vitriol against your fellow human being to be immoral.

23 posted on 01/27/2004 2:06:32 PM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tdadams; little jeremiah; Barnacle
Would you not attribute the simultaneous emergence of these two issues to be due more to a general liberalization in Europe rather than having any cause and effect relationship?

That was my first thought also when I saw the article.  It's first necessary to define what constitutes the erosion of the family, then the writer has to show a substantial statistical correlation between this erosion and the general acceptance of homosexual unions. I didn't see the graphs or tables showing how the basic data points to their conclusion-- all we get here is the conclusions with references.  The final gap was the missing 'nuts-and-bolts' causal relationship-- just where is the 'harm' mentioned in the title?.

This is a big time hot button issue- and IMHO, these gaps were glossed over because the writer can only preach to the converted, and there is no proof that would ever be accepted by say, Howard Dean's backers.  Even if they showed actual electrical shocks leaping from homosexual union law books killing all married persons-- Clinton would still be asking what 'is' is.

The massive homosexual industrial complex knows that they're wacko.  That's why they don't call for some new kind of social institution, they want what they do to be called 'marriage' because they know that 'marriage' is better than what they do.  But don't ever tell them that, because then they'll accuse you of having latent homosexual tendencies yourself. 

Not that there's anything wrong with it.

24 posted on 01/27/2004 2:09:06 PM PST by expat_panama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: expat_panama
Here's what some noted homosexual spokespeople have to say about "gay" marriage:

(Proving in their own words that their mission is to change the meaning of morality in society.)

"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." Michenlangelo Signorile in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994.)

Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.

Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).

Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)

Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit."


25 posted on 01/27/2004 2:16:50 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
(me) Your foundation seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that there's nothing harmful or inherently destructive about same sex behavior.

(you) That's correct. I don't think there is. I would also disagree with your characterization that homosexuality is nothing more than a "behavior".


There you go. We'd have to settle this issue before any further discussion. So, have you read any of scripter's database of articles explaining the correlation between homosexual behavior and disease?

(And as far as homosexuality being more than behavior, that is a very mysterious assertion. Homosexuality MEANS two men having sex together, or two women. Or I guess more than two. But that is the definition!
26 posted on 01/27/2004 2:21:01 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Homosexuality MEANS two men having sex together, or two women. Or I guess more than two. But that is the definition!

That is your definition, which not so coincidentally, reinforces your prejudice.

have you read any of scripter's database of articles explaining the correlation between homosexual behavior and disease?

You mean many of the articles written by Paul Cameron, who was expelled from the APA for unethical conduct related to improper research methods and publishing studies as factual when they were never subject to peer review? Of course, his explanation is that he wasn't expelled, but resigned voluntarily. Anyone with two brain cells can see through that.

Almost without exception (and I only say "almost" because I've not read every word of the articles, so I can't say definitively), the articles you mention have fixed on a conclusion and only seek to find studies to support that conclusion.

That's not the way legitimate science is done, but it is the way demagoguery is done.

27 posted on 01/27/2004 2:34:22 PM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
Right, as opposed to the ethical, unbiased, scientific, neutral writings and opinions of homosexuals! ROTFLOL!!
28 posted on 01/27/2004 3:48:41 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: CAtholic Family Association
Bump for an outstanding article -- so I can easily find and re-read it -- thoroughly!
29 posted on 01/27/2004 5:16:14 PM PST by TXnMA (No Longer!!! -- and glad to be back home (and warm) in God's Country!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
I agree. I think this study demonstrates the deline of morality in Europe. Gay marriage is the end result, not the cause, of the situation.
30 posted on 01/27/2004 5:20:51 PM PST by KantianBurke (2+2 does NOT equal 5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Now you're attributing assertions to me that I didn't make. You're not being honest in this discussion and that goes back to the heart of my original complaint about this topic.
31 posted on 01/27/2004 5:33:54 PM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: CAtholic Family Association
One could just as easily say that in a post-agrarian society, as children become less valuable they tend to become less valued.
32 posted on 01/27/2004 5:42:08 PM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat_panama; tdadams; little jeremiah
Here's the bottom line. I don't need no stink'n European study to know that prevalent homosexuality is a indication of moral decay and societal decline.

The objectives of homosexual groups is no longer just to be left alone, they want their perversion to be considered acceptable by adults, children, and churches. They want to change the world we live in so that their sickness will be accommodated.

The world they envision is Sodom and Gomorrah, and I ain't living in it.
33 posted on 01/27/2004 6:23:48 PM PST by Barnacle ("It is as it was." JPII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
Ok. So you asserted that scripter's database of articles about homosexuality are biased and "anti-gay" (whatever THAT means - you never did tell me!).

So what is your hallowed opinion about the "pro-gay" articles?

And I expect an answer to my question: What do you mean by "anti-gay"?
34 posted on 01/27/2004 6:33:53 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
Actually, what Kurtz is saying is a refutation of "conservative" pro-gay marriage advocates' (like Eskridge and Sullivan) position that gay marriage will strengthen the institution, not weaken it.

So Kurtz looked at the places where gay marriage has been instituted the longest. And the results are that marriage is the weakest of all there.

Now Kurtz does show a direct causal relationship there, at least not empirically. But the evidence is enough to suggest that Eskridge's and Sullivan's position is utterly untenable.

Gay marriage may or may not in fact damage the institution itself. In fact, it is apparent (especiall in Scandinavia) that most of the damage was done before same-sex marriage and by heterosexuals to boot. But the idea that gay marriage will strengthen marriage itself is simply not tenable based on the evidence today. In fact, it is flatly absurd.

35 posted on 01/27/2004 6:43:42 PM PST by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana
Correction: "Now Kurtz does not show a direct causal relationship there..."
36 posted on 01/27/2004 6:46:39 PM PST by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: tdadams; little jeremiah; CAtholic Family Association
For once, I'd like to have a mature, frank discussion on this issue, but I do know from experience that that's just too much to expect from you and the other vitriolic anti-gay posters here.

Then go to a site where people will tolerate it. As far as I'm concerned, homosexuals have no legitimate claim to anything. Here, you might as well be seeking a frank discussion on the merits of Marxism.

If that makes me "anti-gay" in your mind, I don't care. There is no group that has done more damage to the Catholic Church and to the general health of America.

When will homosexuals apologize for the plague of AIDS that they've spread across this nation and the devastation to lives and the cost of everyone's health care? Or how about the people who got AIDS because a homosexual sold his blood?

Do you have any idea how much money has been funneled away from research in heart disease and cancer to find a cure for the most easily prevented disease on Earth?

Do you want to help homosexuals? Tell them to stop sticking things where they don't belong.

37 posted on 01/27/2004 7:04:16 PM PST by Barnacle ("It is as it was." JPII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana
Now Kurtz does [not] show a direct causal relationship there, at least not empirically. But the evidence is enough to suggest that Eskridge's and Sullivan's position is utterly untenable.

I'm not sure if it is or isn't untenable. I think what we're dealing with is a lot of smoke and mirrors on both sides. Rather than keeping things clear and comparing apples to apples, each is clouding the picture by putting their own interpretation on two different sets of statistics (number of divorces and number of marriages) and concluding that the amalgamation of the numbers support their position.

38 posted on 01/27/2004 7:05:18 PM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Barnacle
Go ahead and be as belligerent and vitriolic as you like, you're only making yourself marginalized and easily dismissed as someone who is beyond reason.

Blaming gays for the problems of the Catholic church? Please, that's laughable. The Catholic church is it's own worst enemy. It had a problem in it's ranks for decades that it did nothing about... no let me correct that, which it facilitated.

You're blaming gays for the "devastation of health care" in America? Please, that's just plainly absurd. By most reasonable estimates, gays make up no more than 3% of the population. They don't have nearly the impact on our health care system as prosmiscuous heterosexuals do. Promiscuous heterosexuals also are the ones having abortions, something which is far more abhorrent than anything gays will ever do.

Like it or not, there are promiscuous homosexuals and there are monogamous homosexuals, just like there are promiscuous heterosexuals and monogamous heterosexuals. Promiscuity by either is damaging to the health of the nation, but you choose only to focus on that of the homosexuals.

It's a transparent pretext, wrapped in a facade of concern about health care, for your personal and irrational animosity towards this group of people.

39 posted on 01/27/2004 7:20:07 PM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
It's a transparent pretext, wrapped in a facade of concern about health care, for your personal and irrational animosity towards this group of people.

All your other cluelesss quibles aside, are you a member of "this group of pople"?

40 posted on 01/27/2004 7:34:16 PM PST by Barnacle ("It is as it was." JPII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
Liberals are not tolerated on Free Republic. Why a homosexual advocate is allowed on this Conservative site is beyond me.
41 posted on 01/27/2004 7:38:35 PM PST by Barnacle ("It is as it was." JPII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Barnacle
So now you'd like to undermine my credibility by implying that I have a vested interest?

I'm not black, but I oppose racial discrimination. I'm not a drug user, but I oppose the war on drugs.

See a pattern here?

42 posted on 01/27/2004 7:39:44 PM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Barnacle
And now you're calling for me to be silenced because I challenge you and disagree with your viewpoint? Nice little fascist aren't you?
43 posted on 01/27/2004 7:41:05 PM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
Just how tolerant are you of people who wish to have sex with animals?
44 posted on 01/27/2004 7:42:01 PM PST by Barnacle ("It is as it was." JPII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Barnacle
When (and if) you're capable of a question that's not inflammatory and ridiculous, I'll consider a reasoned response.
45 posted on 01/27/2004 7:43:32 PM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
Blaming gays for the problems of the Catholic church? Please, that's laughable. The Catholic church is it's own worst enemy. It had a problem in it's ranks for decades that it did nothing about... no let me correct that, which it facilitated.

If you removed the sex abuse problems committed by homosexuals, what problems would the Catholic Church be left with?

46 posted on 01/27/2004 7:45:03 PM PST by Barnacle ("It is as it was." JPII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
You're asking Freepers to be tolerant of a practice we consider abhorant. Why don't you just answer the question?
47 posted on 01/27/2004 7:46:58 PM PST by Barnacle ("It is as it was." JPII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
The more you look at the numbers, however, the harder it is to come up with any idea that gay marriage has strengthened marriage in Scandinavia.

The Spedale report of a 10% increase in marriage (from 1990 to 1996) was not true, since the 2001 numbers (for Denmark and Sweden) showed a *decline* since 1990. Meanwhile, whatever is happening with the divorce rate, many are no longer holding off until the children are grown.

But it is interesting that gay marriage has made its greatest strides precisely where the institution is in direst straits. In essence the fight, such as it is, is over a corpse.

When the link between marriage and procreation is severed or even weakened, both suffer.

48 posted on 01/27/2004 7:47:12 PM PST by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Barnacle
Was the Catholic Church not complicit in covering up the crime? Transferring the offending priests to one new diocese after another, in effect handing them a whole new crop of children to molest?
49 posted on 01/27/2004 7:47:35 PM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
You wouldn't be here if it was up to me. That's for sure. I consider your agenda as dangerous to the future of America as any Bolshevic.
50 posted on 01/27/2004 7:49:16 PM PST by Barnacle ("It is as it was." JPII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-88 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson