 |
| Its the children who are important (Wikimedia) |
The most important consequence of the Bill is that it treats the relationship between children and same sex couples as identical to the relationship between children and male-female couples. Scientific studies suggest that there may be serious disadvantages for children if they are raised by Gay couples. Parliament must not pass any law that treats both single sex and mixed sex couples as identical until more is known about the effects on children.
Another important consequence of the Bill is that it will make any insistence on the ordinary, historical usage of the words "marriage", "spouse", "husband" and "wife" an offence under the Equality Act 2010 (see below). This Bill is not just delivering new Rights to homosexuals, it is removing a Right to Free Speech from the 80% of the working population who are employees.
Children in Same Sex Families
Gay couples adopting children usually involves the adoption of a child. Given that being heterosexual means knowing your own sex and also having a close relationship with the opposite sex whereas being homosexual means only knowing your own sex intimately there might be misgivings about the breadth of social experience in Gay households. Responsible agencies might need evidence that no harm will occur before deliberately placing children in this currently novel environment
The American Psychological Association (APA) recently stated (2005) that: "Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents". This APA statement has been repeated and widely accepted world-wide as evidence that the adoption of children by Gay Families should be encouraged.
On close examination Loren Marks (2012) found that of 67 studies considered by the APA only one large study, a study by Sarantakos (1996) actually compared Gay families with married heterosexual families in a scientific manner. The results of this study found the following achievement scores for the children of married, cohabiting and gay families:
Language Achievement Married 7.7, Cohabiting 6.8, Homosexual 5.5 Mathematics Achievement Married 7.9, Cohabiting 7.0, Homosexual 5.5 Social Studies Achievement Married 7.3, Cohabiting 7.0, Homosexual 7.6 Sport Interest/Involvement Married 8.9, Cohabiting 8.3, Homosexual 5.9 Sociability/Popularity Married 7.5, Cohabiting 6.5, Homosexual 5.0 School/Learning Attitude Married 7.5, Cohabiting 6.8, Homosexual 6.5 Parent-School Relationships Married 7.5, Cohabiting 6.0, Homosexual 5.0 Support with Homework Married 7.0, Cohabiting 6.5, Homosexual 5.5 Parental Aspirations Married 8.1, Cohabiting 7.4, Homosexual 6.5a
Marks points out in the article that many of the studies of Gay families have compared these with single heterosexual parents, not heterosexual couples. These studies state that there is no difference between Gay and "heterosexual" families but it is well known that single parent families result, statistically, in disadvantaged children (obviously some single parents do a marvellous job but on average the children of single parents have a problem). Gay families achieving the same outcome as single parents is a worrying finding, not cause for celebration about the equality of outcomes.
Many of the other studies are so unscientific as to be laughable, reporting that Lesbian couples have a rosier view of their children's development than comparison groups and concluding that this shows they are equal or better for the children than these groups. (Self report studies).
Another reason to worry is that these studies of Gay Families are so obviously designed to mislead government and other agencies that one might believe there was a conspiracy embracing the whole of the Social Sciences - but surely this would be paranoid nonsense! Sadly it is not paranoid or nonsense: see Discrimination against conservatives in sociology and social science departments? If governments want good advice in the social sciences they must purge social science departments of political bias and naked discrimination. It is time for governments to cull at least half of the social sciences posts and to replace most of the senior staff with scientists rather than postmarxists.
I feel sorry for Marks because the social science establishment is so highly politicized that it will publish endless critiques and character assassinations until the media and legislature are convinced that Marks was wrong, deluded, insane, and corrupt and should not be given a job as a cleaner. No-one will dare publish any corroborating evidence. Governments really should not finance a post-Marxist social science establishment.
The issue of Gay Families is often framed in terms of the rights of the Gay couple rather than the rights of the children. An example of this is evident in the lengthy report on same sex couples by Mitchell et al (2009) which says:
"It was hoped that one of the results of the Civil Partnership Act – alongside the EERs and the Adoption and Children Act – would be to produce a shift in social-cultural attitudes to lesbian, gay and bisexual people and to same-sex relationships "
This statement suggests that the purpose of encouraging Gay adoptions is to make the Gay couples more socially acceptable rather than providing a secure home for children.
The rights and well being of the child are of central importance when considering Gay Families, not the rights of Gay couples, and before the Social Services and Courts routinely approve gay adoption there needs to be some proper research on whether Gay families are good for children. The studies must go beyond comparing a small number of wealthy lesbian families with a small number of single parent or unmarried families and extrapolating from these results to the approval of all Gay families.
The standard of most of the academic papers in this field is scandalously low and the Social "Sciences" journals that publish such work should be ashamed of themselves for publishing politics rather than science.
Gay Partnerships and Gay Civil Partnerships are of the nature of a Human Right but sanctioning the adoption of children by Gay Families requires cast iron evidence that the adopted children are not seriously disadvantaged. This evidence has not been found and it is an urgent matter for genuine sociological research.
If you find this article interesting link to it, tweet it (TinyURL http://tinyurl.com/acd7xyg )
Can you choose to be gay?
The American Psychological Association's slippery advice on Gay marriage is not surprising because the APA has a very poor record on homosexuality. Most people imagine that the current academic research and advice is that you cannot help being Gay. This was indeed the advice when homosexuality was being legalised across the Western World. You may be surprised to know that this is no longer the case.
The current academic view, now held by the American Psychological Association, is that homosexuality is more akin to a social attitude than a disease. The emphasis on genetics in the discussion of homosexuality over the past 30 years reflects the "disease model" of homosexuality that was prevalent in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It is now known to be incorrect.
There appears to be no evidence of a significant genetic component to homosexual behaviour in humans:
 |
| Homosexuality is not genetic |
It is interesting that homosexuality is a rare behaviour in the USA, male homosexuality having a prevalence of only about 1% up to the 1990s:
 |
| From 5. My genes made me do it, a scientific look at sexual orientation |
"There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."
In fact there was very little evidence for this viewpoint and in 1998 they changed their guide to read:
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."
However, their original input to the legislative process worldwide was highly effective, portraying homosexuality as an inevitable result of genetics and chemistry. This approach by the APA meant that homophobes were hoist on their own petard - if homosexuality were genetic, what homophobes might call a genetic disease, then it simply had to be accepted. The APA are doing the same trick of misleading the people with Gay Marriage. The APA's original, false, statement on the inevitable, biological basis of homosexuality is still believed widely and is the stuff of a thousand TV dramas and literary works.
This approach helped the APA to achieve the legalisation of homosexual acts. This may have been a good thing. However, to take this same approach of promulgating false information to legislators in the case of marriage and adoption is obviously bad if it affects children and free speech.
If it is clear that homosexuality is not predominantly genetic, that the glands of homosexuals are not making them slaves to their behaviour, then why does it happen? The history and geographical variation in homosexual behaviour should have alerted everyone to the probability that homosexuality was not genetic or even biological in the sense of simply chemically determined. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an interesting section on the history of homosexuality. The section starts with the statement:
"As has been frequently noted, the ancient Greeks did not have terms or concepts that correspond to the contemporary dichotomy of ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’."
St Augustine is credited with the analysis that led to the repression of homosexuality:
The viewpoint "... that procreative sex within marriage is allowed, while every other expression of sexuality is sinful, can be found, for example, in St. Augustine. This understanding leads to a concern with the gender of one's partner that is not found in previous Greek or Roman views, and it clearly forbids homosexual acts. Soon this attitude, especially towards homosexual sex, came to be reflected in Roman Law. In Justinian's Code, promulgated in 529, persons who engaged in homosexual sex were to be executed, although those who were repentant could be spared. Historians agree that the late Roman Empire saw a rise in intolerance towards sexuality, although there were again important regional variations."
The repression of homosexual behaviour seems to have been directed at creating a particular sort of society in the sixth century AD. The whole of the European and Near Eastern world was in social, religious and economic flux at this time and the Roman Established Church was pivotal in implementing the new social order.
We are now living in a postmodern era where this previous social order is being replaced by one that is invented by the media and educators in response to economic and political pressures. Homosexuality has advantages in this new society, homosexuals can work late and they have more spending power than heterosexuals. The practice of homosexuality is more sociable than that of heterosexuality so preferment is enhanced, especially in the media. Homosexuals also form clubs so can agitate as pressure groups for their own interests. As a rational choice in an increasingly lonely society which lacks any belief structure and rewards the availability of personnel, homosexuality makes a great deal of sense.
In the past it is is probable that early family dynamics and childhood peer dynamics played a pivotal role in producing homosexual traits but I would expect to see homosexuality occurring increasingly as a conscious choice in the future.
This expected increase in homosexual behaviour is confirmed in a survey of the prevalence of homosexuality in men in the USA:
 |
| From 5. My genes made me do it, a scientific look at sexual orientation |
This increase in homosexual behaviour has occurred long after the legalization of homosexuality so presumably reflects choice. It is also the case that about half of homosexuals have been heterosexual and half have changed from homosexual to heterosexual, suggesting a high turnover of sexual preference (Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith (1981), Rosario et al. (1996), Laumann et al. (1994), Cameron et al (1985)). Needless to say, the turnover implies that homosexuality is not a fixed characteristic but more in the nature of a preference for the same sex or a distaste for the opposite sex.
Now that it is "OK to be Bisexual" it has been possible to demonstrate that homosexuals can rate themselves according to a percentage attraction for women (for instance 20% attracted to women) and that these ratings can change. Work in this area has been effectively banned by gay pressure groups in the Social Sciences, a ban that is equivalent to discriminating against bisexuality. A 2002 survey in the United States by the National Center for Health Statistics found that 1.8 percent of men ages 18–44 considered themselves bisexual, 2.3 percent homosexual, and 3.9 percent as "something else". The same study found that 2.8 percent of women ages 18–44 considered themselves bisexual, 1.3 percent homosexual, and 3.8 percent as "something else". Anecdotal evidence (Kinsey and others) suggests that bisexuality is much more frequent in early adolescence. It is likely that many young people go through a bisexual period before settling on the social group that gives them the greatest sense of fulfilment and belonging.
There is undoubtedly a spectrum in humanity from those who find their own sex highly attractive and the opposite sex disgusting through those who find both OK to those who find the opposite sex highly attractive and their own sex disgusting. The gay pressure groups of the late 1960s used Marxist dialectical methods to polarize opinion and promulgated the idea that you are either entirely gay or not gay at all, that gays could never change and even to consider this possibility was homophobic (see Liberation movements and liberation politics in the Cold War). This technique has been highly successful for achieving their agenda. However, becoming a member of a gay grouping based on this politics is akin to joining a cult.
It is high time that the media stopped mythologising homosexuality.
Now, I happen to think that what people do in the bedroom is their own concern but I do believe that the APA has acted extremely badly. I have written elsewhere about how the Social Sciences establishment is behaving in a political manner, having been captured by activists (see When will governments react to discrimination in Sociology and Social Science Departments?). Something should be done about this, governments should not be financing such outrageous behaviour by social "scientists".
Gay "Marriage" and freedom of speech
Apart from adultery and consummation, Civil Partnerships are almost the same legally as Marriages. So why do gay pressure groups want to change the law on marriage to include gays? The answer is simple: they want everyone to use the term "marriage" to describe a close relationship.
The
new law sanctioning Gay marriage will not, on its own, compel people to
use terms such as Marriage, Husband and Wife when describing Gay
couples. However, when the word "marriage" becomes a legal term for Gay
Partnerships the Equality Act 2010
will ensure that anyone who objects to the new usage of words can be
punished severely. You will not be allowed to speak freely. The
greatest irony is that in the 1960s there would have been no change in
the status of homosexuals without the insistence on free speech by the
bulk of the population, many of whom found homosexuality "disgusting"
but still stood up for Gay Rights on principle. Now we are all so holy
that many would be happy to see the livelihoods removed of those who say
things that are offensive to homosexuals. I can scarcely believe that
the whole country is not
in uproar. Free speech transcends the rights of special interest
groups.
 |
| A Gay Marrigae, Courtesy Wikipedia |
The only way that these changes might be acceptable is to amend the Equality Act 2010 (see Equality Act 2010 - read it and be afraid) to remove all of the clauses that relate to speech, opinions and beliefs. The Equality Act must be amended anyway because it makes a mockery of a free society. It is well known that the Act is in conflict with freedom of religion but the Act also comes into conflict with the right of ordinary people to speak freely. Government can say that changes to the law on marriage will not compel anyone who disagrees with it to change their behaviour but this is a lie, the Equality Act will compel people to change. Indeed, the Equality Act can be used to compel people to accept almost any legislation without discussion if that legislation is framed in the language of rights, races, genders, nationalities or religions.
We seem to have forgotten the declaration of faith in democracy of our forefathers: "I might not agree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it". Is the Enlightenment truly over?
Once you compel people with the law to change their mode of speech where will it end? Will we be sacked if we call someone a "Tory"? If you think this is a "small thing" and "why not let people be called by the words they desire?" you are missing the point, people are being compelled by the state to use the word "marriage". If you think this compulsion is acceptable then you are pro-gay rights but anti-freedom of speech but without freedom of speech there will be no "rights".
Returning to Gay Marriage, why do gay people want to be called "married"? According to Parliamentary briefing: Same Sex Marriages and Civil Partnerships:
"The most significant difference between the two types of union is that a valid marriage can be entered into only by a male and a female, whereas a civil partnership is available only to same-sex couples. There are also other differences, including:
• civil partnership can only be a civil, and not religious, procedure, whereas opposite-sex couples can, in relevant circumstances, choose to have either a religious or a civil marriage ceremony
• adultery is not a ground for dissolution of a civil partnership (as it is for divorce), nor is consummation a criterion for legal validity (as it is in marriage); however, infidelity may be a contributory factor where ‘unreasonable behaviour’ is cited as a ground for seeking dissolution of a civil partnership
• there are differences in procedure: a civil partnership is formed when the second partner signs the relevant document, whereas a civil marriage is formed when the couple exchange spoken words and then the register is signed."
So there is little difference between Civil Partnerships and Marriage except the name, and adultery and non-consummation being grounds for dissolution. If required Civil Partnerships could be amended to include the necessity of sex and a clause against infidelity. It is only the name, "marriage", that is at issue.
Gay pressure groups such as Stonewall want to change the law on marriage (especially the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973) and have proposed a draft Marriage Bill so that "husband and wife" is changed to "parties to a marriage", and not being male and female in a marriage and already being pregnant by donor conception are not grounds for anullment. They have also asked for an odd amendment so that a marriage is not void if a person is already married provided the couple to be married already have a civil partnership. Stonewall have not mentioned in their draft bill that they must also be changing the meaning of "consummation" to mean sex between two people of the same sex.
Stonewall also want a Minister of the Crown to be given the power to change the Act without referring to Parliament. Handing arbitrary power to Ministers is an appalling idea.
Normally even minor changes to Marriage Acts involve weeks of debate but Parliament seem to be in the mood for changing the Marriage Acts wholesale at a single vote. Marriage is an important institution, it is the primary protection for children. That the media would cover changes to such an important institution as a playground battle between "progressives" and "homophobes" is the clearest demonstration to date of the victory of postmodernism in the media and Parliament.
The parties in Westminster really don't represent me or many of the people I know, most of whom are horrified at being forced by law to use a particular mode of speech. All I can say to them is don't do it, don't ever vote Tory, Labour or Lib-Dem again.
Note: Whilst a majority of people support the change in the law to allow gay marriage as a legal right (45% pro, 36% anti) a majority are also very much against a change in the meaning of the word "marriage". ComRes asked if people agreed with the statement that: “Marriage should continue to be defined as a life-long exclusive commitment between a man and a woman” 70% of people agreed, with 22% disagreeing.
Marks, L. (2012) Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American psychological association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting. Social Science Research Volume 41, Issue 4, July 2012, Pages 735–751. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580
Mitchell, M., Dickens, S., and O'Connor, W. (2009)Same-Sex Couples and the impact of Legislative Changes
May 2009 Prepared for: Economic and Social Research Council Grant reference number: RES-000-22-1972 http://www.natcen.ac.uk/media/659702/5b08c910-522b-48e1-8394-7ae514931aaf.pdf
Sarantakos, S. (1996) Children in three contexts: family, education, and social development. Children Australia, 21 (1996), pp. 23–31
1. Rutter, M. (2006). Genes and behavior. Malden, MD: Blackwell.
2. Bailey, J. M., Dunne, M., & Martin, N. (2000). Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 524–536.
3. Bearman, P., & Bruckner, H. (2002). Opposite-sex twins and adolescent same-sex attraction. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 1179–1205.
4. Mann et al. (2009). Candidate Endophenotypes for Genetic Studies of Suicidal Behavior Biol Psychiatry. 2009 April 1; 65(7): 556–563.
5. Neil and Briar Whitehead. (1999) My genes made me do it, a scientific look at sexual orientation.
6. Cameron, P., Proctor, K., Coburn, K. and Forde, N. (1985) Sexual orientation and sexually transmitted disease. Nebraska Medical Journal 70 292-299.
7. Rosario, M., Meyer-Bahlburg, H.F.L., Hunter, J. and Exner, T.M. (1996) The psychosexual development of urban, gay and bisexual youths. Journal of Sex Research 33 113-126.
8. Laumann, E.O., Gagnon,,J.H., Michael, R.T., Michaels, S., The Social Organization of Sexuality (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1994).
9. Byrd, A.D. APA's New Pamphlet on Homosexuality De-emphasizes the Biological Argument, Supports a Client's Right to Self-Determination
16/11/12
Comments