A Response to the Lies of Oxymoronic Homosexual Parenting II
By Gary L. Morella
The following was published in
the Centre Daily Times of
Considering the source
Surprised by the recent letter referencing a report from the
A review of the site revealed a commitment to blend morality and scientific understanding within a framework consistent only with specific conservative ideologies.
The following is from more mainstream organizations:
*American Psychological Association: “Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children … their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment and popularity with friends.”
*American Medical Association: “Our AMA will support legislative and other efforts to allow the adoption of a child by the same-sex partner … who functions as a second parent or co-parent to that child. … The AMA reaffirms its long-standing policy that there is no basis for the denial to any human being of equal rights, privileges and responsibilities commensurate with his or her individual capabilities and ethical character because of an individual’s sex, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or transgender status, race, religion, disability, ethnic origin, national origin or age.”
A reply from Gary L. Morella follows.
The letter criticizing The American College of Pediatricians stand against homosexual parenting comes as no surprise given that the biases of the “mainstream” organizations cited by the critic are completely ignored. The critic dismissed the ACP report as “consistent with only conservative ideologies” in complete ignorance of 36 references to the contrary. It is a sad commentary on a society gone insane that denying children a mother and a father is looked upon as being “mainstream”.
scientific truth in regard to the problems with organizations like the
analysis by Dr. Sharon Quick, (Quick is a pediatric
anesthesiologist/critical care physician, currently retired from clinical
practice for health reasons. She was formerly Assistant Professor in the
Department of Anesthesiology at the
The truth regarding the American Psychological Association comes from one of its former presidents, Nicholas Cummings, quoted in “Psychology Losing Scientific Credibility, Say APA Insiders.” [http://www.narth.com/docs/insiders.html] When co-authoring his newly released book Destructive Trends in Mental Health, Cummings and his co-author invited the participation of a number of fellow psychologists who flatly turned them down - fearing loss of tenure, loss of promotion, and other forms of professional retaliation. “We were bombarded by horror stories,” Dr. Cummings said. “Their greatest fear was of the gay lobby, which is very strong in the APA.” “‘Homophobia as intimidation’ is one of the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda.”
The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported in its January 2001 issue - citing a government-sponsored study of 5,998 adults in the Netherlands aged 18 to 64 - that “people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders” - including bipolar, obsessive-compulsive, and anxiety disorders, major depression, and substance abuse. Yet the AMA sees nothing wrong with putting children at risk in such an environment, thus violating the principle of non-contradiction in that something cannot “be” and “not be” at the same time in the same respect.
See the following for a complete refutation of the aforementioned letter by Andrew Peck. – Gary L. Morella
Marriage Rights for Homosexual Couples: Not Best for Children
Critique of AAP Special Report
Letter to the Editor
A report commissioned by the
Quotation Errors in AAP Report
A significant portion of the July 2006 Special Report of
A report commissioned by the
The institution of marriage, and therefore the fundamental
family unit, is under attack. The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) to the US
Constitution, proposed in Congress to help preserve this most child
supportive family unit, is likewise under attack. The
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Den A. Trumbull, MD
Joseph R. Zanga, MD,
Leah M. Willson, MD,
Vicki Tucci, Esq
American College of Pediatricians
To the Editor.—
With its release of the July Pediatrics article "Effects of Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children," the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) officially endorses and advocates for the elevation of civil unions and domestic partnerships to the same legal status of traditional, heterosexual marriage in America.1 The AAP defends this unprecedented move with underwhelming demographics and general statements of benefits for children in these settings. We find this position untenable and, if implemented, detrimental to children and the family at large.
The recent AAP article presents the demographics of homosexual households as compelling evidence for changing federal marriage law. Citing the 2000 US Census and without revealing percentage figures, the authors note a significant increase in the absolute number of same-sex households compared with the 1990 census. However, in a technical note the Census Bureau urged caution in this comparison stating that "[d]ata on unmarried partners from the 1990 census (which were based on data from the sample form) are not comparable with data from Census 2000 because of changes in the editing procedures."2(p1, footnote 2) Furthermore, the Census Bureau noted that this census count could be an overestimate given the low occurrence of homosexual households in the population.3
Actually, homosexual households comprised <1% of all households in
the 2000 census, and most did not contain children. Specifically, only
one third of female same-sex households and approximately one fifth
of male same-sex households contained children under 18 years old.4
Furthermore, the vast majority of these children are from previous
heterosexual relationships, and although no data are given, many of
the homosexual parents are sharing joint custody with the child's
other biological parent. Therefore, the number of children living
full-time in a home with homosexual partners will be even smaller
than the 0.2% to 0.04% of total households indicated in the census.
These percentages hardly represent "an established and growing
part of the diverse structure of families in the
Children do not derive their psychosocial and emotional well-being from legal rights granted to them by the state. Rather, a child's well-being is optimally nurtured within a stable family setting with parents who are loving, affirming, protective, directive, and committed to one another. It is true that the state can augment such a setting, but well-being must first begin within the home. Therefore, the authors are gravely misguided in claiming that "[c]hildren's wellbeing relies in large part on a complex blend of their own legal rights and the rights derived, under law, from their parents."6
The evidence of favorable outcomes from homosexual parenting used in this article is the same faulty research cited in the AAP's 2002 same-sex adoption policy statement.7 The studies suffer critical flaws such as nonlongitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables.8 Within the earlier policy statement was the acknowledgment that "[t]he small and nonrepresentative samples studied and the relatively young age of most of the children suggest some reserve."9(p343) With no such caution, Pawelski et al proclaim, "There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. ... These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents."10 It is appalling that a professional medical organization could so recklessly champion "evidence" when none exists. In fact, child-rearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in homes with 2 heterosexual parents.11–13
In fact, children reared in homosexual households experience and are exposed to greater health risks than those in heterosexual married households.14 Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages, with the average homosexual relationship lasting only 2 to 3 years.15–18 Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation.19(p213),20,21,22(p7),23(p174,179) Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.24 These findings are in direct contradiction to the claims of the AAP.
Noticeably missing from the review is any focused research regarding the effects of marriage law on children, which is the purported topic of the article. Also omitted is any mention of the legal and social service benefits currently afforded the child under the care of a single parent or within a step household. In fact, legal rights and social assistance are currently available to children in nonintact homes without giving household partners full marital rights and privileges. Rather than addressing this fact, the authors defend their opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment by listing 41 benefits that the homosexual household would lose if the amendment was enacted. Realistically, at least 20 of the benefits could still be obtained by execution of legal documents such as power of attorney or designation of beneficiary, and a minimum of 10 would primarily benefit only the adults.
Most of the parental rights desired by same-sex marriage proponents are premised more on biological linkage than legal marital status. Professor Teresa Collett of the St Thomas School of Law explains, "A stepparent is not entitled to be considered a ‘parent’ after the dissolution of the marriage to the biological parent. A presumption of parentage based on marriage is limited to husbands only. Offspring of the husband born to a woman other than his wife are not presumed to be the children of the wife because there is no biological linkage. Similarly, a child cannot be biological offspring of both same-sex partners. In contemporary society, an increasing number of caregivers are biologically unrelated to the child—stepparents, childcare providers, teachers, etc. A child's relationship with any of these people can be formative and often benefits from stability, but the state does not impose continuing obligations of care or support on these individuals as a general rule. Absent radical restructuring of the law pertaining to support of biologically related children, recognition of same-sex unions creates no legal benefit to children."25 As such, civil marriages would benefit the adults, not the children.
Heterosexual marriage is a unique and natural institution from which new life arises and within which new life naturally flourishes. Historians have noted that marriage between a man and a woman is an essential characteristic of civilization and, as such, is the "seedbed" of society.26 Society will always depend on heterosexual marriage to provide for future generations. The child receives protection and nurturance by the natural affection and attachment of the biological mother and father. Civil unions of homosexual caregivers cannot possess this natural chemistry for the child. The heterosexual marriage is a legal and social commitment of unique importance to the child and society and, therefore, is deserving of exceptional privilege and protection. It is dangerously shortsighted to experiment with diluting this distinction.
Studies have consistently shown that family structure does matter, with children from traditional, intact families (2 heterosexual, married parents and biological children) faring better than those reared in nonintact families (single, step, or cohabiting parents).27 The beneficial effects include better behavior, higher literacy, higher grades, lower truancy, lower depression/anxiety, better physical health, lower antisocial behavior, lower adolescent substance abuse, closer attachment to parents, lower adolescent sexual activity, and closer monitoring of the child by parents of intact families. Research indicates that most children in nonintact families are at an educational and social disadvantage compared with children in intact families.
With little or no legal benefit to children and the clear possibility of imposed health risks, it would seem the AAP agenda to grant legal marriage status to homosexual couples is primarily about privileges for homosexual adults. Advocating for such a bold, historic change in family law without indisputable evidence of benefit to the child places children in a dangerous position as subjects within an adult, politically motivated experiment. Do we really want to place children in a sort of adoptive vivisection experiment and argue that this practice is really for their benefit?
To grant legal marriage rights to domestic partnerships or any combination of adults other than the heterosexual couple would begin a slippery slide toward complete dissolution of marriage. The unintended consequences to society may be profound. If 2 homosexual adults are deemed as worthy to care for a child as the biological parents, then what about a marriage of 3 or 4 adults? What about granting married status to an adult and a child? As peculiar as these possibilities may seem, modern-day groups have championed their realization.28 Heterosexual marriage must be socially encouraged and legally advocated to propagate its occurrence.
The purpose of the AAP article is summarized in its concluding quote of an American Psychiatric Association policy statement that supports "the legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage with all rights, benefits, and responsibilities conferred by civil marriage, and opposes restrictions to those same rights, benefits, and responsibilities." We are opposed this position because of its absence of evidence-based research and potential negative consequences on children. Granting legal marital status to homosexual civil unions would be a tragic miscalculation that would bring irreparable damage to society, the family, and the child.
PEDIATRICS (ISSN 1098-4275). ©2006 by the American Academy of Pediatrics
As pediatricians we devote our professional lives to the
health and well-being of the children we see. We strive to blend our
scientific understanding of illness with our compassion for the child to
achieve the best outcome through our daily encounters. In addition to the
individual care we offer, we have a responsibility to influence our society
for the betterment of children today and into the next generation. The
fundamental, procreational family unit of one man with one woman in a
marriage relationship is under attack. Despite solid, time-honored evidence
that children optimally develop in such a setting, contemporary researchers
are claiming that the parental arrangement does not matter. In unprecedented
social experimentation, efforts are being made to deconstruct the marriage
unit in order to endorse same-sex parenting, divorce, and practically any
other parenting combination imaginable.
TEXT OF THE LETTER
Please click HERE
to sign the letter.
Rosie Knows Homosexual Adoption Puts Children at Risk
By Gary Glenn
The media glorified Rosie O’Donnell’s public announcement that she has sex with other women. But it glossed over these startling contradictions: O’Donnell’s frank admission that she believes her own adopted children would be better off being raised by a married mother and father, bolstered by the hope that they won’t follow her example of choosing to engage in homosexual behavior.
“Would it be easier for [my kids] if I were married to a man? It probably would,” O’Donnell told ABC Primetime Thursday reporter Diane Sawyer.
And when asked if she hopes her adopted children will grow up to be “straight”…
“Yes, I do,”
Rosie said. “I think life is easier if you’re straight. … If I were to pick,
would I rather have my children have to go through the struggles of being gay
Rosie also revealed that her six-year-old son Parker has told her, “I want to have a daddy.” She responded, “If you were to have a daddy, you wouldn’t have me as a mommy, because I’m the kind of mommy who wants another mommy. This is the way mommy got born.”
Thus the biggest conclusion Americans should draw from the Rosie O’Donnell confessional is this — that Miss O’Donnell is a spoiled, privileged adult who put her own feelings ahead of what even she believes would be in the best interests of the children. She used her privilege and wealth to place children too young to object in an environment two recent studies indicate will make them more likely to engage in the very high risk behavior Rosie hopes they won’t.
The scientific fact is that children’s health is endangered if they are adopted into households in which the adults — as a direct consequence of their homosexual behavior — experience dramatically higher risks of domestic violence, mental illness, substance abuse, life-threatening disease, and premature death by up to 20 years.
Is it healthy for children to be adopted by adults whose lifestyle is characterized by promiscuity and the medical hazards of multiple sex partners?
How will being adopted by adults involved in homosexual behavior affect the behavior of children themselves?
Which means children adopted by adults involved in homosexual behavior face not only secondhand exposure to the risks of such behavior by their “parents,” but are more likely to suffer firsthand by engaging in the same high-risk behavior themselves.
Young people who model the homosexual behavior of their adopted “parents” face other risks:
The sheer weight of evidence makes the issue clear: Should children be handed over as trophies to the homosexual “rights” movement — adopting them into households where they’ll face dramatically higher risk of exposure to domestic violence, mental illness, life-threatening disease and premature death? An environment which increases the chances they’ll engage in high-risk homosexual behavior themselves?
Not on your life, Rosie.
And certainly not theirs.
Gary Glenn, Midland, is president of the American Family Association of Michigan.