Skip to comments.New European Studies Show Homosexual Marriage Harms Marriage in General
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of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage.gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable."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: email@example.com Website: http://www.culture-of-life.org
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
All your other cluelesss quibles aside, are you a member of "this group of pople"?
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.