New European Studies Show Homosexual Marriage Harms Marriage in General

Culture of Life Foundation ^ | 1/27/04 | Culture of Life Foundation

[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of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage.gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable."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

[Barnacle]

Stop making sense!

?;^T

[Antoninus]

Cardinal Bernard Law is a homosexual? I didn't realize that. Or perhaps you're not being entirely truthful about the situation.

I wonder why Fr. Shanley was obliquely referring to "information" he had in some of his letters to Cardinal Law. I wonder why the seminary in Boston has been a hotbed of homosexual activity for years.

[Siamese Princess]

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.

Absolutely correct. Rush Limbaugh has said that at one time this country had all kinds of little minorities who were considered weird and oddball by everyone else. Nowadays, though, they are sick of being considered weird and oddball -- they want to be the new majority!

[Barnacle]

Bump.

Thanks for the breather.

[tdadams]

Did I say I speak for all Freepers?

You said, "You're asking Freepers to be tolerant of a practice we consider abhorant."

That sure seems to give the impression that you think you're speaking for all Freepers.

Speaking of Conservative, what would you know about that? You're a Libertarian

Please, don't get on libertarian bashing now. First of all, I'm not a Libertarian, I'm a libertarian. If you don't know the difference, look around on FR. There's plenty of information to draw from. Secondly, many libertarians, myself included, are indeed conservatives. Call us libertarian-conservatives (as I do). This illustrious group includes people like Barry Goldwater and William Buckley, Jr. Hardly fringe players in conservatism.

[Barnacle]

Absolutely correct. Rush Limbaugh has said that at one time this country had all kinds of little minorities who were considered weird and oddball by everyone else. Nowadays, though, they are sick of being considered weird and oddball -- they want to be the new majority!

That explains the Democrat Party. It's become a catch-all for the Whacko Jackos of the country.

One might say, "That's good, because Republicans will get elected," I say it's bad because anyone with half a brain no longer has a choice of parties. We'd be better off with two viable parties and an intelligent electorate.

[Barnacle]

I speak for myself and I know may agree with me. If you doubt it, let's have you or me start a thread asking that very question.

First of all, I'm not a Libertarian, I'm a libertarian.

Well, excuse me! I tought you were a LiBertarian, then a liBertarian, then you started leaning a bit LiBeRtArIaN, so I'm glad we got that straight. Speaking of straight, I can't even feel gay about that anymore since our language has been hijacked by the Leftists.

Ain't it queer?

[Polycarp IV]

That sure seems to give the impression that you think you're speaking for all Freepers.

You are right!!!

He's only speaking for the vast majority of FReepers. We ALL know there are a handful of homosexual agenda folks here and their little Amen corner of agnostic, atheist, and/or libertarian apologists.

[SuziQ]

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."

Which is exactly what the homosexual activists want; to destroy the idea of marriage totally, thus pulling the rug out from under civilization.

[Siamese Princess]

One thing that I like about Dr. Kurtz's article is that he recognizes the destructive effect of the welfare state. It's been a cliche for decades about AFDC destroying the black family, but Kurtz seems to understand that the welfare state in general weakens the family by rendering it superfluous. In fact, "traditional morality" is no longer a necessity but simply another lifestyle option because the welfare state will save people from the consequences of their foolish decisions. Even God is redundant, because, again, the government provides.

[Siamese Princess]

That explains the Democrat Party. It's become a catch-all for the Whacko Jackos of the country.

The Democratic Party is the party of moral degenerates, freeloaders, and privilege-seeking minority bigots.

One might say, "That's good, because Republicans will get elected," I say it's bad because anyone with half a brain no longer has a choice of parties. We'd be better off with two viable parties and an intelligent electorate.

You are right about that. Unfortunately, by and large the Republicans really are Democrats Lite. Voting for the Republicans means that this nation just won't go to hell quite as fast.

[Barnacle]

Unfortunately, by and large the Republicans really are Democrats Lite. Voting for the Republicans means that this nation just won't go to hell quite as fast.

Bump that.

It's sad, but the truth is that the country as a whole has swung so far left that a Conservative could not be elected president. I doubt Ronald Reagan's platform could win today.

[GigaDittos]

"In 1989, Denmark had legalized de facto gay marriage (Norway followed in 1993 and Sweden in 1994)."

Sodom and Gay-morrah have been relocated.

[GigaDittos]

Where in the constitution is education mentioned. There are far more basic errors being made regarding the Constitution. I'm with you, but it goes much more fundamental.

[katana]

Difficult to prove cause and effect and I'd suspect that the two (decline of marriage and legality of homosexual "marriage") are separate fruits (no pun) of the same ugly branch, that is the overall decay of European moral society.

[tuesday afternoon]

Someone told me Europe is effectively dying as a culture, as birth rates are way below replacement rates - except for Muslims.

[webstersII]

(tdadams)"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. "

Thought you both might like some food for thought as a break from the back-and-forth of the Homosexuality discussions.

I call this article (originally posted here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/607791/posts) "The myth of objectivity".

Everyone thinks they can be objective and rational, only considering the facts. But if the truth be known, most everyone decides what they believe first and then searches for evidence to substantiate their conclusions. Apparently it's the way that our brains are wired. Read what follows for a good example of this.


Article:
Cheeky little test exposes wine 'experts' as weak and flat
The Times (UK) ^ | 01/14/2002 | Adam Sage

Posted on 01/14/2002 5:57:55 AM PST by dighton

DRINKERS have long suspected it, but now French researchers have finally proved it: wine “experts” know no more than the rest of us.

Their rituals as they pronounce judgment have been revealed as little more than self-delusion by an awardwinning French study. They base their views as much on colour and labels as upon a wine’s bouquet and flavour.

“The truth is that you cannot define taste objectively,” said Frédéric Brochet, a researcher from Bordeaux whose study won an award from the Amorim wine academy in France. The opinions of the so-called connoisseurs are are no better and perhaps worse than that of the occasional drinker, he said. The greater the expertise, the greater the cultural baggage that prevents you from perceiving the actual taste in your mouth.

M Brochet carried out two studies. In the first, he invited 54 of Bordeaux’s eminent wine experts to sample different bottles, including a white wine to which he had added a lavourless substance giving it a red colour. Not a single expert noticed. “It is a well known sychological phenomonen — you taste what you are expecting to taste,” M Brochet said. “They were expecting to taste a red wine, and so they did.” Similar experiments elsewhere had come up with similar results. “About 2 or 3 per cent of people detect the white wine flavour, but invariably they have little experience of wine culture. Connoisseurs tend to fail to do so. The more training they have, the more mistakes they make because they are influenced by the colour of the wine.”

In the second test, 57 experts tasted the same average bottle of Bordeaux wine on two occasions. The first time it was labelled as a high-prestige grand cru, and the second time it was labelled as a cheap vin de table. When they thought it was a grand cru, the experts described it as agreeable, woody, complex, balanced and rounded. When they thought it was a vin de table, they said it was weak, short, light, flat, faulty and with a sting. Forty said the wine was good when they thought it was expensive, but only 12 when it was cheap.

“This is why wine frauds are virtually never detected on taste alone, but because someone tips off the police who look at the paperwork,” M Brochet said. He has studied the brain activity of wine tasters and found that those sections handling information relating to colour and knowledge operate alongside those which deal with flavour and smell. What we perceive is a mixture of thought, vision and taste.

Indeed, the brain receives more information more quickly from the eyes than from the mouth or nose.

M Brochet also points out that the molecule that gives what is described as the taste of blackcurrants, redcurrants or raspberries in red wine is identical to that which gives an apricot or peach taste to white wine. The description of the connoisseurs changes because the colour is different.

Copyright 2002 Times Newspapers Ltd.

[tdadams]

That's a good article. I remember reading it when it was first published and can't agree more. I actually had an occasion that mirrored that finding. I had bought some cheap Gallo table wine, but to keep it from going bad put it in smaller 750ml bottles so there would be less air to spoil it. The smaller bottles of course were really good wine, some of them in the $50 range. One of my wine snob friends was over one day and helped himself and his girlfriend to a glass. The were both thoroughly impressed and highly complimentary of the wine. I never did tell them they were drinking from a four liter jug of Gallo I bought for $10. Why ruin their enjoyment.

But back to the matter at hand... this shouldn't come as news to anyone. We all look for validation to what we already believe. That's the way the human brain works.

My issue is this - that's not the way science is supposed to work. To publish a study, and have people refer to that study, one that is conducted completely bass-ackwards from the accepted scientific standard, is nothing less than fraudulent.