On December 9, Hoover Institution Research Fellow Tod Lindberg penned a
column in The Washington Times

("The case against same-sex 'marriage'") in
which he correctly noted that the most powerful argument against
state-sanctioned homosexual "marriage" is the belief that homosexuality is
morally wrong.

But he dismissed the "sociological" case against "gay
marriage" too quickly. Below is a slightly longer version of my letter

the Times printed in response on December 13:

Polls indicate broad support for marriage that transcends religious
affiliation, race and socio-economic status, and that Americans are

increasingly concerned about the social fallout of homosexuality,

on children.

A study in the journal AIDS reported that in Holland, where "gay marriage"
has been legal since 2001, HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases are
soaring among homosexual men. The study notes that "partnered" homosexuals
have "outside" lovers, although fewer than the "unpartnered,"

http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=5014&department=CFI&categoryid=family





By Robert Knight

http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=5014&department=CFI&categoryid=family

Sanctioning "gay marriage" would, among
other things:



Further weaken the family, the first and best defense against an
ever-encroaching government.


Encourage children to experiment with homosexuality. This will put more
kids
at risk for HIV, hepatitis A, B and C, "gay bowel syndrome," human
papillomavirus (HPV), syphilis, gonorrhea and other sexually transmitted
diseases.


Homosexual households are also more prone to domestic violence. For
example:
"The incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in
the heterosexual population," according to D. Island and P. Letellier in
Men
Who Beat the Men Who Love Them (New York: Haworth Press, 1991).

A study in the Journal of Social Service Research reported that "slightly
more than half of the [lesbians surveyed] reported that they had been
abused
by a female lover/partner." (G. Lie and S. Gentlewarrior, "Intimate
Violence
in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice
Implications," No. 15, 1991.) More cites can be found in Tim Dailey, The
Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality, Insight paper, Family Research
Council, 2001.



Put more children at risk as adoption agencies abandon the crrent practice
of favoring married households and begin placing more children in
motherless
or fatherless households.


Encourage more people to remain trapped in homosexuality rather than seek
to
re-channel their desires toward normal sexuality.


Pit the law and our government against the beliefs of tens of millions of
people who believe homosexuality is wrong.


Create grounds for further attacks on the freedoms of speech, religion and
association.

On December 9, Hoover Institution

http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=3D5014&department=3DCFI&categor=

By Robert Knight









On December 9, Hoover Institution Research Fellow Tod Lindberg penned a
column in The Washington Times ("The case against same-sex 'marriage'") in
which he correctly noted that the most powerful argument against
state-sanctioned homosexual "marriage" is the belief that homosexuality is
morally wrong. But he dismissed the "sociological" case against "gay
marriage" too quickly. Below is a slightly longer version of my letter th=

the Times printed in response on December 13:

Polls indicate broad support for marriage that transcends religious
affiliation, race and socio-economic status, and that Americans are becom=

increasingly concerned about the social fallout of homosexuality, especia=

on children.

By saying that sociological arguments against "gay marriage" suffer from
"weakness," Mr. Lindberg might consider that the best arguments are rarely
heard. Media consistently ignore well-documented evidence that children do
best in intact, married homes, and that homosexuality carries enormous
physical and mental health risks, even in places where governments promote
homosexual unions.



A study in the journal AIDS reported that in Holland, where "gay marriage"
has been legal since 2001, HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases are
soaring among homosexual men. The study notes that "partnered" homosexuals
have "outside" lovers, although fewer than the "unpartnered," and that men
in these relationships are still contracting the AIDS virus at alarming
rates. This is progress?


As for the moral argument, it's easy to make to those who have not shut
their ears to self-evident truth. But even if marriage were not created by
God Himself as the fountainhead of human life, a powerful case can be made
on purely sociological grounds. Sanctioning "gay marriage" would, among
other things:



Further weaken the family, the first and best defense against an
ever-encroaching government.


Encourage children to experiment with homosexuality. This will put more k=

at risk for HIV, hepatitis A, B and C, "gay bowel syndrome," human
papillomavirus (HPV), syphilis, gonorrhea and other sexually transmitted
diseases.


Homosexual households are also more prone to domestic violence. For examp=

"The incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in
the heterosexual population," according to D. Island and P. Letellier in =

Who Beat the Men Who Love Them (New York: Haworth Press, 1991).

A study in the Journal of Social Service Research reported that "slightly
more than half of the [lesbians surveyed] reported that they had been abu=

by a female lover/partner." (G. Lie and S. Gentlewarrior, "Intimate Viole=

in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice
Implications," No. 15, 1991.) More cites can be found in Tim Dailey, The
Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality, Insight paper, Family Research
Council, 2001.



Put more children at risk as adoption agencies abandon the crrent practice
of favoring married households and begin placing more children in motherl=

or fatherless households.


Encourage more people to remain trapped in homosexuality rather than seek=

re-channel their desires toward normal sexuality.


Pit the law and our government against the beliefs of tens of millions of
people who believe homosexuality is wrong.


Create grounds for further attacks on the freedoms of speech, religion and
association.

California is Exhibit A, where "domestic partnerships" are part of an
overall homosexual agenda. Golden State employers must subsidize homosexu=

relationships or give up state contracts. Employers must promote
transsexuality as a civil right or risk a $150,000 fine. All foster care
parents must take "diversity" training that orders them to affirm a child=

sexual behavior, including "cross-dressing."


If you're a Californian who believes in traditional morality, your
government regards you as an enemy of the state. If "gay marriage" becomes
legal nationally, all Americans will be subject to the tender mercies of
pro-homosexual bureaucrats.


Mr. Lindberg himself alludes to the fact that many people think
homosexuality is wrong but are embarrassed to say so. It's not because of
the "weakness of the argument" but rather the unceasing media campaign to
portray anyone who disagrees with homosexual activism as a "bigot" or a
"hater." During the Vietnam War, liberals invoked the ghost of Joe McCart=

to silence anti-communist opinion. Today, sexual libertines are using sti=

to strangle honest discussion about homosexuality.


When the traditionalist Rev. Earle Fox was accorded three minutes for
dissent at the consecration ceremony for New Hampshire's homosexual
Episcopal bishop V. Gene Robinson, the Rev. Fox began listing the practic=

in which homosexuals typically engage. "I wanted them to know what they w=

blessing in God's name," he said. The chairman cut off the Rev. Fox in
mid-presentation. Even three minutes of truth is too much for those who
pretend that homosexuality is normal and harmless.


Until the realities of homosexual behavior are examined publicly, Mr.
Lindberg may be right that only moral arguments will carry any weight. But
it's not because the social arguments are weak; it is because the public =

being kept in the dark about the real costs of homosexuality.












--
--
----------

J Y=F6ung
youngopinions@aol.com

http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=3D5014&department=3DCFI&categor=

By Robert Knight









On December 9, Hoover Institution Research Fellow Tod Lindberg penned a
column in The Washington Times ("The case against same-sex 'marriage'") in
which he correctly noted that the most powerful argument against
state-sanctioned homosexual "marriage" is the belief that homosexuality is
morally wrong. But he dismissed the "sociological" case against "gay
marriage" too quickly. Below is a slightly longer version of my letter th=

the Times printed in response on December 13:

Polls indicate broad support for marriage that transcends religious
affiliation, race and socio-economic status, and that Americans are becom=

increasingly concerned about the social fallout of homosexuality, especia=

on children.

By saying that sociological arguments against "gay marriage" suffer from
"weakness," Mr. Lindberg might consider that the best arguments are rarely
heard. Media consistently ignore well-documented evidence that children do
best in intact, married homes, and that homosexuality carries enormous
physical and mental health risks, even in places where governments promote
homosexual unions.



A study in the journal AIDS reported that in Holland, where "gay marriage"
has been legal since 2001, HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases are
soaring among homosexual men. The study notes that "partnered" homosexuals
have "outside" lovers, although fewer than the "unpartnered," and that men
in these relationships are still contracting the AIDS virus at alarming
rates. This is progress?


As for the moral argument, it's easy to make to those who have not shut
their ears to self-evident truth. But even if marriage were not created by
God Himself as the fountainhead of human life, a powerful case can be made
on purely sociological grounds. Sanctioning "gay marriage" would, among
other things:



Further weaken the family, the first and best defense against an
ever-encroaching government.


Encourage children to experiment with homosexuality. This will put more k=

at risk for HIV, hepatitis A, B and C, "gay bowel syndrome," human
papillomavirus (HPV), syphilis, gonorrhea and other sexually transmitted
diseases.


Homosexual households are also more prone to domestic violence. For examp=

"The incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in
the heterosexual population," according to D. Island and P. Letellier in =

Who Beat the Men Who Love Them (New York: Haworth Press, 1991).

A study in the Journal of Social Service Research reported that "slightly
more than half of the [lesbians surveyed] reported that they had been abu=

by a female lover/partner." (G. Lie and S. Gentlewarrior, "Intimate Viole=

in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice
Implications," No. 15, 1991.) More cites can be found in Tim Dailey, The
Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality, Insight paper, Family Research
Council, 2001.



Put more children at risk as adoption agencies abandon the crrent practice
of favoring married households and begin placing more children in motherl=

or fatherless households.


Encourage more people to remain trapped in homosexuality rather than seek=

re-channel their desires toward normal sexuality.


Pit the law and our government against the beliefs of tens of millions of
people who believe homosexuality is wrong.


Create grounds for further attacks on the freedoms of speech, religion and
association.

California is Exhibit A, where "domestic partnerships" are part of an
overall homosexual agenda. Golden State employers must subsidize homosexu=

relationships or give up state contracts. Employers must promote
transsexuality as a civil right or risk a $150,000 fine. All foster care
parents must take "diversity" training that orders them to affirm a child=

sexual behavior, including "cross-dressing."


If you're a Californian who believes in traditional morality, your
government regards you as an enemy of the state. If "gay marriage" becomes
legal nationally, all Americans will be subject to the tender mercies of
pro-homosexual bureaucrats.


Mr. Lindberg himself alludes to the fact that many people think
homosexuality is wrong but are embarrassed to say so. It's not because of
the "weakness of the argument" but rather the unceasing media campaign to
portray anyone who disagrees with homosexual activism as a "bigot" or a
"hater." During the Vietnam War, liberals invoked the ghost of Joe McCart=

to silence anti-communist opinion. Today, sexual libertines are using sti=

to strangle honest discussion about homosexuality.


When the traditionalist Rev. Earle Fox was accorded three minutes for
dissent at the consecration ceremony for New Hampshire's homosexual
Episcopal bishop V. Gene Robinson, the Rev. Fox began listing the practic=

in which homosexuals typically engage. "I wanted them to know what they w=

blessing in God's name," he said. The chairman cut off the Rev. Fox in
mid-presentation. Even three minutes of truth is too much for those who
pretend that homosexuality is normal and harmless.


Until the realities of homosexual behavior are examined publicly, Mr.
Lindberg may be right that only moral arguments will carry any weight. But
it's not because the social arguments are weak; it is because the public =

being kept in the dark about the real costs of homosexuality.












--
--
----------

J Y=F6ung
youngopinions@aol.com